TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129557; 14744-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129512; 14744-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129254; 14744-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129230; 14744-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129211; 14744-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128902; 14744-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128883; 14744-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128274; 14744-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128022; 14744-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127934; 14744-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127706; 14744-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127601; 14744-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127598; 14744-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127507; 14744-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127501; 14744-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127371; 14744-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126900; 14744-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126891; 14744-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126891?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126886; 14744-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126877; 14744-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126869; 14744-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126864; 14744-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126859; 14744-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126851; 14744-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126812; 14744-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126809; 14744-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126804; 14744-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126801; 14744-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126797; 14744-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126484; 14744-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126479; 14744-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126375; 14744-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&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, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126347; 14744-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127588; 14741-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127459; 14738-8_0008 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873127459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127453; 14738-8_0007 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873127453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127442; 14738-8_0006 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873127442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127422; 14741-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127419; 14741-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127333; 14737-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127328; 14737-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127322; 14737-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127316; 14737-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127309; 14737-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127302; 14737-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127299; 14737-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127297; 14737-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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, Elko, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127291; 14737-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127284; 14741-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127203; 14741-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127200; 14741-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127199; 14737-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127198; 14741-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873127198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126989; 14738-8_0001 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873126989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT / UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT / UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126781; 14739-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a second water supply pipeline with appurtenant facilities between the South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel and the Corona del Mar Water Treatment Plant (CDMWTP) in Glen Annie Canyon, north of the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California is proposed. The South Coast Conduit (SCC) and Tecolote Tunnel were constructed in the 1950s as part of the Cachuma Project, which was designed to provide for storage of surface water from the Santa Ynez River watershed and a terminal point for State Water Project (SWP) water at Lake Cachuma for the South Coast communities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Summerland, and Carpinteria. Limitations and age of the original equipment, significant system modifications, and increased demands have constrained the ability of the SCC to function at the system's original design capacity and the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, which maintains the SCC, has been forced to rely on water stored in Lauro, Ortega, and Carpinteria reservoirs to meet regional water needs. In addition, no redundant supply or pipeline exists to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service due to scheduled repairs or unexpected system breakdown. As the upper reach of the SCC has the largest demand deficit and is located upstream from the sources of demand, the proposed improvements would allow more water flow farther along the pipeline to improve the level of service and reliability of the SCC. Three alternative pipeline alignments, a No Project Alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The No Project and the No Action alternatives differ in that the former would provide for site improvements with the requisite federal permits at stream crossings, while the latter would include no improvements other than annual maintenance and operational activities. Under the preferred alternative alignment, a pipeline would be constructed parallel to the existing SCC pipeline along portions of existing easements, west of the existing pipeline within an existing road from the intersection with the South Portal access road to the east end of Glen Annie Reservoir, and south of the existing SCC pipeline from east of Glen Annie Creek to the Corona del Mar turnout. The pipeline would connect SCC structures at the South Portal and the CDMWTP and, possibly at the Glen Anne turnout. A new South Portal diversion structure would be constructed to divert water into each pipeline. Magnetic flowmeters would be installed at the South Portal of (CDMWTP) to provide improved flow rate measurement accuracy. In order to shut down one of the pipelines for maintenance tasks, the structure would include the installation of slide gates or butterfly valves. Modifications to the CDMWTP turnout structure would also be required to provide flow control. The existing vent structure could be demolished. The pipeline alignment would be connected to the Glen Anne turnout upstream of the weir that regulates the hydraulic grade line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would replace deteriorated infrastructure with adequate structures to accommodate regional water needs and improve the level of service; provide a second pipeline to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service for any reason; and increase operational flexibility by providing higher flow rates to accommodate regional water needs during times of peak demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new pipeline would result in the long-term loss of oak woodland and the temporary loss of riparian woodland and seasonal wetlands. One site potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced, and the project could disturb or destroy paleontological resources. Construction and operation of the system could result in releases of hazardous pollutants that would violate water quality standards. The preferred pipeline alignment would require crossings at the West Fork and the main stem of Glen Annie Creek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0494D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100469, 275 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-63 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Santa Ynez River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT / UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT / UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126778; 14739-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a second water supply pipeline with appurtenant facilities between the South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel and the Corona del Mar Water Treatment Plant (CDMWTP) in Glen Annie Canyon, north of the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California is proposed. The South Coast Conduit (SCC) and Tecolote Tunnel were constructed in the 1950s as part of the Cachuma Project, which was designed to provide for storage of surface water from the Santa Ynez River watershed and a terminal point for State Water Project (SWP) water at Lake Cachuma for the South Coast communities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Summerland, and Carpinteria. Limitations and age of the original equipment, significant system modifications, and increased demands have constrained the ability of the SCC to function at the system's original design capacity and the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, which maintains the SCC, has been forced to rely on water stored in Lauro, Ortega, and Carpinteria reservoirs to meet regional water needs. In addition, no redundant supply or pipeline exists to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service due to scheduled repairs or unexpected system breakdown. As the upper reach of the SCC has the largest demand deficit and is located upstream from the sources of demand, the proposed improvements would allow more water flow farther along the pipeline to improve the level of service and reliability of the SCC. Three alternative pipeline alignments, a No Project Alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The No Project and the No Action alternatives differ in that the former would provide for site improvements with the requisite federal permits at stream crossings, while the latter would include no improvements other than annual maintenance and operational activities. Under the preferred alternative alignment, a pipeline would be constructed parallel to the existing SCC pipeline along portions of existing easements, west of the existing pipeline within an existing road from the intersection with the South Portal access road to the east end of Glen Annie Reservoir, and south of the existing SCC pipeline from east of Glen Annie Creek to the Corona del Mar turnout. The pipeline would connect SCC structures at the South Portal and the CDMWTP and, possibly at the Glen Anne turnout. A new South Portal diversion structure would be constructed to divert water into each pipeline. Magnetic flowmeters would be installed at the South Portal of (CDMWTP) to provide improved flow rate measurement accuracy. In order to shut down one of the pipelines for maintenance tasks, the structure would include the installation of slide gates or butterfly valves. Modifications to the CDMWTP turnout structure would also be required to provide flow control. The existing vent structure could be demolished. The pipeline alignment would be connected to the Glen Anne turnout upstream of the weir that regulates the hydraulic grade line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would replace deteriorated infrastructure with adequate structures to accommodate regional water needs and improve the level of service; provide a second pipeline to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service for any reason; and increase operational flexibility by providing higher flow rates to accommodate regional water needs during times of peak demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new pipeline would result in the long-term loss of oak woodland and the temporary loss of riparian woodland and seasonal wetlands. One site potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced, and the project could disturb or destroy paleontological resources. Construction and operation of the system could result in releases of hazardous pollutants that would violate water quality standards. The preferred pipeline alignment would require crossings at the West Fork and the main stem of Glen Annie Creek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0494D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100469, 275 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-63 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Santa Ynez River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126774; 14741-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873126773; 14737-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873126771; 14737-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126770; 14741-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873126769; 14737-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126767; 14741-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873126766; 14737-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873126763; 14737-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873126761; 14737-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT / UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - SOUTH COAST CONDUIT / UPPER REACH RELIABILITY PROJECT, GLEN ANNIE CANYON, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126758; 14739-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a second water supply pipeline with appurtenant facilities between the South Portal of the Tecolote Tunnel and the Corona del Mar Water Treatment Plant (CDMWTP) in Glen Annie Canyon, north of the city of Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California is proposed. The South Coast Conduit (SCC) and Tecolote Tunnel were constructed in the 1950s as part of the Cachuma Project, which was designed to provide for storage of surface water from the Santa Ynez River watershed and a terminal point for State Water Project (SWP) water at Lake Cachuma for the South Coast communities of Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito, Summerland, and Carpinteria. Limitations and age of the original equipment, significant system modifications, and increased demands have constrained the ability of the SCC to function at the system's original design capacity and the Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board, which maintains the SCC, has been forced to rely on water stored in Lauro, Ortega, and Carpinteria reservoirs to meet regional water needs. In addition, no redundant supply or pipeline exists to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service due to scheduled repairs or unexpected system breakdown. As the upper reach of the SCC has the largest demand deficit and is located upstream from the sources of demand, the proposed improvements would allow more water flow farther along the pipeline to improve the level of service and reliability of the SCC. Three alternative pipeline alignments, a No Project Alternative, and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. The No Project and the No Action alternatives differ in that the former would provide for site improvements with the requisite federal permits at stream crossings, while the latter would include no improvements other than annual maintenance and operational activities. Under the preferred alternative alignment, a pipeline would be constructed parallel to the existing SCC pipeline along portions of existing easements, west of the existing pipeline within an existing road from the intersection with the South Portal access road to the east end of Glen Annie Reservoir, and south of the existing SCC pipeline from east of Glen Annie Creek to the Corona del Mar turnout. The pipeline would connect SCC structures at the South Portal and the CDMWTP and, possibly at the Glen Anne turnout. A new South Portal diversion structure would be constructed to divert water into each pipeline. Magnetic flowmeters would be installed at the South Portal of (CDMWTP) to provide improved flow rate measurement accuracy. In order to shut down one of the pipelines for maintenance tasks, the structure would include the installation of slide gates or butterfly valves. Modifications to the CDMWTP turnout structure would also be required to provide flow control. The existing vent structure could be demolished. The pipeline alignment would be connected to the Glen Anne turnout upstream of the weir that regulates the hydraulic grade line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would replace deteriorated infrastructure with adequate structures to accommodate regional water needs and improve the level of service; provide a second pipeline to convey Cachuma Project water or SWP water to the South Coast if the upper reach of the SCC goes out of service for any reason; and increase operational flexibility by providing higher flow rates to accommodate regional water needs during times of peak demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the new pipeline would result in the long-term loss of oak woodland and the temporary loss of riparian woodland and seasonal wetlands. One site potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced, and the project could disturb or destroy paleontological resources. Construction and operation of the system could result in releases of hazardous pollutants that would violate water quality standards. The preferred pipeline alignment would require crossings at the West Fork and the main stem of Glen Annie Creek. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0494D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100469, 275 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 10-63 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - California KW - Santa Ynez River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126658; 14741-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126653; 14741-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126644; 14741-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126419; 14738-8_0005 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873126419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126412; 14738-8_0004 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873126412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126409; 14738-8_0003 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873126409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126377; 14738-8_0002 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873126377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126212; 14738-8_0009 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/873126212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON'S ELDORADO-IVANPAH TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126206; 14741-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of 35 miles of new and upgraded electrical transmission facilities in Clark County, Nevada and San Bernardino, California are proposed. Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to construct the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Project (EITP) to provide the facilities necessary to interconnect and deliver up to 1,400 megawatts (MW) of potential renewable energy that is expected to be generated in the Ivanpah Valley area near the California-Nevada border around Primm, Nevada. SCE submitted an application on May 28, 2009 to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the EITP and, because the project would be located primarily on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), SCE also filed a right-of-way (ROW) application with the BLM for a permit to construct. The project would consist of the following components: construction of a new 230/115-kilovolt (kV) Ivanpah substation; replacement of a portion of an existing SCE 115-kV line with a 35-mile double-circuit 230-kV transmission line, connecting the new Ivanpah substation to SCEs Eldorado substation located 14 miles southwest of Boulder City, Nevada; upgrades at Eldorado substation to support the connection of new transmission lines; and construction of two separate telecommunications pathways and communication equipment to connect the project to SCEs existing telecommunications system. The redundant telecommunications path would be strung along the existing 500-kV Eldorado-Lugo transmission line for 25 miles before it would be installed in a new underground duct for five miles along the northern edge of Nipton Road to a new microwave tower outside Nipton, California. In addition to the proposed project and a No Action Alternative, this final EIS analyzes five transmission line routing alternatives and two telecommunications alternatives. The proposed project is the preferred alternative. SCE's targeted operation date is July, 2013 and construction is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 2011 and to take 19 months to complete, including time for inspection and testing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction would provide transmission infrastructure and access to renewable energy resources in California and Nevada, enable Nevada to export clean energy to California, support state and federal renewable energy goals and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improve reliability by providing a stronger transmission grid, and provide jobs during project construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Estimated total land disturbance from project components is 480 acres during construction, with a permanent disturbance of 54 acres. Estimates of average daily emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds resulting from project construction exceed daily significance thresholds and would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant. Impacts to aquifer recharge processes and groundwater levels could be significant. EITP, in conjunction with other projects such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, would result in cumulative impacts to native vegetation, including cacti and yucca species. The proposed project would impact several special-status wildlife species and their habitat; impacts to desert tortoise and its habitat would be significant even after mitigation. Unavoidable adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources as seen from several key observation points in the Ivanpah Valley and the Clark Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: The 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 10-0046D Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100471, Volume I--552 pages and maps, Volume II--490 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-56 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Communication Systems KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Emissions KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada 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/873126206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Needles, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWMONT MINING COMPANY, EMIGRANT PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 848819127; 14737 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open-pit gold mine located 10 miles south of Carlin in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Newmont Mining Corporation would develop the Emigrant Project under a plan of operations submitted for consideration to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mining plan would call for the development and operation of an open-pit mine; construction of a waste rock disposal facility, run-of-mine heap leach pad, permanent engineered stream diversion channel; ancillary support facilities; and reclamation of surface disturbance in the project area. The mine would extend over 615 acres and mining would progress in phases beginning at the lower elevations of the southern mine pit area. A waste rock disposal facility would cover an area of 78 acres, extending 190 feet above the existing topography and providing a capacity of 12 million tons. Waste rock from subsequent phases would be placed in mined-out portions of the pit. Potentially acid-generating rock would be segregated and placed on limestone benches in mined-out portions of the pit, and encapsulated with a minimum of 10 feet of neutralizing waste rock. Low-grade oxide ore would be placed on a heap leach facility constructed south of the mine pit. The heap leach would be a run-of-mine facility so that crushing of ore would not be necessary at this time. If in the future, crushing became necessary, Newmont would obtain the necessary permits from the state authorities. Dewatering would not be necessary since the pit would be excavated above the groundwater table. Ore and waste rock would be drilled and blasted in sequential benches to facilitate loading and hauling. Blasted ore and waste rock would be loaded into off-road, end-dumping haul trucks using shovels and front-end loaders. Benches would be established at approximately 20-foot vertical intervals with bench widths varying to include safety berms and haul roads. Haul trucks would move within the pit using roads on the surface of the benches with ramps extending between two or more benches. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action, which with added mitigation measures is the BLM's preferred alternative, and considers a No Action Alternative. The Emigrant Project would have a 14-year operational mine life and produce approximately 92 million tons of ore and 83 million tons of waste rock. Closure activities could continue for up to 30 years after mining is completed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would result in the production of a significant volume of gold ore. The Emigrant Project would employ 180 workers, most of who would come from the Carlin Trend. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 1,418 acres would include 248 acres of private land and 1,170 acres of public land. Grazing allotments would lose 306 animal unit months of forage. Displacements would include a 0.15-acre wetland, 0.38 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 0.15 acre of aquatic habitat along a natural intermittent stream channel containing a small population of Lahontan speckled dace, Lahontan redside shiner, and aquatic macroinvertebrates. Excavation and exposure of waste rock and ore to oxygen and precipitation could result in the formation of acidic water, affecting groundwater and surface flows. Mining activities would be a source of particulate and gaseous air pollutants. The mine and diversion structure would alter drainage hydrology within the local watershed. Up to 3,900 acres would be removed from recreational use during operation and reclamation activities. A total of 43 cultural resource sites in the area of potential effect include three prehistoric period resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places that would be impacted by construction of the heap leach facility. Local visual aesthetics would be marred by mining structures and pits and alteration of the local topography. 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.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100467, 455 pages and maps, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/11-05+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils Surveys KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada 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 KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/848819127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWMONT+MINING+COMPANY%2C+EMIGRANT+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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 848819093; 14738 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 study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the 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 deauthorized 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. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO 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 evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and 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 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 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 habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located 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 under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration 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: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact 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). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control 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/848819093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 46 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127407; 14736-6_0046 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 45 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127399; 14736-6_0045 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&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 Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 44 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127390; 14736-6_0044 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 32 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127385; 14736-6_0032 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 27 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127354; 14736-6_0027 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 22 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127345; 14736-6_0022 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 20 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127339; 14736-6_0020 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 19 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127334; 14736-6_0019 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 17 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127325; 14736-6_0017 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTH+COAST+CONDUIT+%2F+UPPER+REACH+RELIABILITY+PROJECT%2C+GLEN+ANNIE+CANYON%2C+SANTA+BARBARA+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127317; 14736-6_0011 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127300; 14736-6_0010 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127293; 14736-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 56 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127066; 14736-6_0056 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 55 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127055; 14736-6_0055 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 43 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127048; 14736-6_0043 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 42 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127040; 14736-6_0042 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 37 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127035; 14736-6_0037 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 36 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127010; 14736-6_0036 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873127010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 18 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126979; 14736-6_0018 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 54 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126950; 14736-6_0054 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 53 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126944; 14736-6_0053 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 52 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126933; 14736-6_0052 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 50 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126925; 14736-6_0050 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 49 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126918; 14736-6_0049 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 48 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126909; 14736-6_0048 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+CALIFORNIA+EDISON%27S+ELDORADO-IVANPAH+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 29 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126901; 14736-6_0029 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 28 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126898; 14736-6_0028 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 21 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126876; 14736-6_0021 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126868; 14736-6_0005 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126863; 14736-6_0004 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 25 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126535; 14736-6_0025 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 24 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126515; 14736-6_0024 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 30 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126416; 14736-6_0030 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 6 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126407; 14736-6_0006 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 9 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126354; 14736-6_0009 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 7 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126340; 14736-6_0007 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 33 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126177; 14736-6_0033 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 35 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126165; 14736-6_0035 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 14 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126151; 14736-6_0014 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 16 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126147; 14736-6_0016 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 13 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126143; 14736-6_0013 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 12 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126129; 14736-6_0012 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 41 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126113; 14736-6_0041 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 40 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126102; 14736-6_0040 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 38 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126078; 14736-6_0038 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/873126078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 848819118; 14736 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. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and 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. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. 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 through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous 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. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 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/848819118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TAMIAMI TRAIL MODIFICATIONS, NEXT STEPS PROJECT, FLORIDA. AN - 873126961; 14734-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Modifications, including a continuous bridge, or additional bridges, or some combination thereof, for the Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41) to restore more natural water flow to Everglades National Park (ENP) and Florida Bay, Miami-Dade County, Florida are proposed. The study area consists of a 10.7-mile stretch of the Tamiami Trail, adjacent to the northern edge of Everglades National Park which in its current condition has inadequate capacity to deliver the volumes of water required to restore ENP and in Northeast Shark River Slough without risking damage to the roadbed and its eventual degradation. Construction of the 264-mile section of U.S. Highway 41/State Road 90 known as Tamiami Trail to connect Tampa and Miami began in 1915 and was completed in 1928. The construction of this roadway created an impediment to natural water flows into the Everglades, slowing and blocking water flow south into the southern Everglades and Everglades National Park. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative includes a one-mile eastern bridge and elevation of the remaining roadway to allow for 8.5 foot stage in the L-29 Canal (currently being constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). All the action alternatives would include bridge construction and reconstruction of the remaining highway, with differences in the bridge or prefabricated culvert lengths and locations. The existing Tamiami Trail roadway embankment would be removed from the areas where the bridges would be constructed. The remaining highway embankment would be reconstructed to raise the crown elevation to 12.3 feet, the minimum required based on the design high water of 9.7 feet and the roadway cross section geometry. To meet current standards for roadway geometry, the higher profile of the roadway would result in a wider roadbed than currently exists. Therefore, expansion of the highway footprint southward would be necessary to avoid impacting the L-29 Canal. Access facilities, such as ramps to the bridge or elevated roadway, would be provided for existing facilities. The maintenance of traffic and construction sequence for the bridge and roadway would be based on the best balance of traffic safety, environmental impacts, and construction cost and duration. Alternative 6e, which is the preferred plan, would add 5.5 miles of bridging to the current one-mile bridge under construction, increasing the total amount of bridge span within the 10.7-mile corridor to 6.5 miles. When coupled with other planned restoration projects, the additional bridging would provide for unconstrained flow to Northeast Shark River Slough in Everglades National Park. This plan would also enable the reconnection of Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA 3) to Everglades National Park, reducing the severity and duration of dry-down events in one compartment of this region (WCA 3B) and the prolonged deep-water conditions associated with loss of tree islands in another compartment (southern WCA 3A). POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative, in combination with the previously authorized one-mile bridge, would restore a total of 6.5 miles of ecological connectivity between ENP and marshes to the north, reconnecting 10 sloughs that have been severed since 1928, and restoring marsh flow patterns across much of Northeast Shark River Slough. The increased water volumes and improved flow distributions would re-establish seasonal water depths and flooding durations that are critical to the survival of many fish and wildlife species, including the federally endangered wood stork, Everglade snail kite, and Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and the state listed roseate spoonbill. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary impacts from construction would impact wetlands, floodplain, wildlife, and vegetation habitat. Construction of any of the alternatives would cause visitor inconveniences such as lane closures, reduced speed limits, reduced accessibility to visitor facilities, noise and vibration, reduced quality of wildlife-related recreational activities, dust and fumes, and the visual presence of vehicles and heavy equipment in construction zones. Contamination by hazardous or toxic waste would be a long-term risk. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-008). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0130D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100464, 1,655 pages on CD-ROM, December 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK+TAMIAMI+TRAIL+MODIFICATIONS%2C+NEXT+STEPS+PROJECT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK+TAMIAMI+TRAIL+MODIFICATIONS%2C+NEXT+STEPS+PROJECT%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Homestead, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873127196; 14731-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873127196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873127195; 14731-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873127195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873127188; 14731-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873127188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873127184; 14731-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873127184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873127182; 14731-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873127182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126538; 14731-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126536; 14731-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126531; 14731-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126528; 14731-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126527; 14731-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126520; 14731-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126243; 14731-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126230; 14731-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126227; 14731-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126221; 14731-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873126216; 14731-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/873126216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAGLE PROSPECT AND NOBLE BASIN OIL AND GAS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BIG PINEY RANGER DISTRICT, BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, SUBLETTE COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 847269901; 14731 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of permits to drill oil and gas wells and construct associated facilities on a portion of the South Rim Unit within the Big Piney Ranger District of the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette County, Wyoming is proposed. Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) has submitted a master development plan (MDP) for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin Area to drill up to 136 oil and gas wells on existing leases located on lands seven miles southeast of Bondurant and administered by the National Forest System (NFS). In all, the project area contains 27,645 acres including 17,778 acres of NFS lands, 240 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and 9,627 acres of privately owned lands which are underlain by federal mineral estate and administered by the BLM. Proposed operations would be conducted in two phases, Phase 1 (exploratory) and Phase 2 (production), in order to delineate, appraise, evaluate, and produce the Eagle Prospect and adjoining lands to the west in the Noble Basin area. Issues identified during scoping include those related to the protection of wildlife, fisheries, soils, water quality, air quality, wetlands, roadless areas, visual resources, and the Wyoming Range. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A responds to public opposition to oil and gas development in the Wyoming Range from local landowners, business owners, labor unions, hunting and fishing groups, ranchers, and elected officials in Wyoming. Alternative B, which is the proposed action, would include the following components: improvement and reconstruction of 14.0 miles of existing NFS roads and new construction of 14.8 miles of non-system roads; construction of up to 17 drill pads from which up to 136 producing wells would be drilled; construction of gas and produced liquids gathering lines and associated facilities; maintenance of the wells, access roads, pipelines, and production equipment throughout the expected life of the project; reclamation during construction and drilling of existing low-standard user-created roads not authorized for public access; and reclamation of well pads, facilities, access roads, and any additional project components upon project completion. Access to the project area from Daniel Junction, west of Pinedale, would be by State Highway 354 to Merna, and then along the Merna North Beaver Road to the NFS boundary. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, impacts would be reduced by minimizing road improvements within the portion of the Grayback Ridge roadless area until the Phase 1 wells are found to be productive. Winter operations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be modified to end by November 15 for the protection of moose crucial winter range. Species using riparian/wetland and aquatic habitats, such as moose, would be afforded greater protection through the implementation of a minimum 500-foot no-surface-occupancy buffer placed around these habitats. A 200-foot buffer would be placed on all stream channels not already flanked by an existing road. To minimize impacts to Canada lynx habitat, proposed Phase 2 well pad locations would be moved a minimum of 100 feet from forested areas and would avoid the removal of standing timber. Under both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Alternative C, a closed loop system would be implemented to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Emissions would be limited or controlled to comply with standards. Alternative D would involve the same activities and mitigation as Alternative C with the exception that a heavy-lift helicopter would be used to transport the drilling rig and other equipment and supplies from the staging areas that would normally be transported by semi-trucks to the proposed Phase 1 well pad. Under Alternative E, the lease retirement alternative, there would be no action and the MDP for the Eagle Prospect and Noble Basin area would not be approved. The coordinated exploration of the MDP area proposed by PXP would not be authorized and no exploratory drilling of test wells or field development would occur due to the voluntary purchase and donation of valid existing lease rights in the MDP area from PXP. The drilling of all 136 wells included in Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to take 13 to 15 years. The Noble Basin field is expected to produce for 30 or more years, assuming the wells drilled are productive. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permit approval would allow PXP to exercise the rights granted under the federal leases within the project area to drill, extract, remove, and market oil and gas products. The construction workforce would contribute to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 136 wells from 17 well pads over a 22 square mile area would result in about 328 acres of potential new surface disturbance. Exploratory drilling associated with the Eagle Prospect under Phase 1 would account for about one fifth of the potential new surface disturbance, or about 73 acres, and potential new disturbance under Phase 2 would be about 254 acres. Project implementation would impact stream channel conditions, increase fire risk, displace wildlife and fish, and introduce new elements into the landscape that would alter existing scenic viewsheds. 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: 100461, Volume I--562 pages and maps, Volume II--132 pages, Volume III--747 pages, December 3, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Bridger-Teton National Forest 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/847269901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=EAGLE+PROSPECT+AND+NOBLE+BASIN+OIL+AND+GAS+MASTER+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+PINEY+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+BRIDGER-TETON+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+SUBLETTE+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Jackson, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 3, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ADDITION, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY / OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE ADDITION, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / WILDERNESS STUDY / OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873130478; 14727-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for the Big Cypress National Preserve Addition in Collier County, Florida is proposed. The Big Cypress Preserve was expanded by Congress in 1988 when the Addition, part of the Big Cypress Swamp, was established. The National Park Service began administering the 147,000-acre area in 1996. No comprehensive planning effort has been conducted for the Addition and it has been closed to public recreational motorized use and hunting since that time. The only public use that is currently allowed is pedestrian and bicycling access and camping. Most wildlife species native to south Florida occur within the Big Cypress watershed and a total of 31 animal species in the Addition receive some level of special protection by the federal government or the state of Florida. Four alternatives for managing the Addition for the next 15 to 20 years, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would perpetuate the existing regime, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would enable visitor participation in a wide variety of outdoor recreational experiences and would maximize motorized access, provide the least amount of proposed wilderness, develop new hiking-only trails, and provide new visitor and operations facilities along the Interstate 75 (I-75) corridor. Additional alternatives C, D, and E were considered and dismissed from further analysis. Alternative F would emphasize resource preservation, restoration, and research while providing recreational opportunities with limited facilities and support. This alternative would provide the maximum amount of wilderness, no off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and minimal new facilities for visitors. The preferred alternative would maximize ORV access by providing 140 miles of sustainable trails and issuing up to 700 ORV permits annually. New access points would be established for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and hunting, and new paddling trails would be developed in the tidal areas south of US 41. A new visitor contact station and some outdoor orientation and interpretive panels would be developed along I-75. About 85,862 acres of land would be proposed for wilderness designation. The total one-time cost for both Alternative B and for the preferred alternative is estimated at $6.7 million, while the total one-time cost for Alternative F is estimated at $4.9 million. Both Alternative B and the preferred alternative would have annual operating costs of $7.9 million, while Alternative F would have an annual operating cost of $7.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A general management plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the Addition. The preferred plan would provide diverse frontcountry and backcountry recreational opportunities, enhance day use and interpretive opportunities along road corridors, and enhance recreational opportunities with new facilities and services. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have adverse, mostly localized impacts on surface water flow, non-native plants, the endangered Florida panther, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and major game species. Fifty-seven archeological sites have been identified in the Addition and impacts to resources could result from increases in motorized recreation. Middens, or raised mound areas, would be potentially attractive to ORV and backcountry users, and trampling or disturbance could occur. Impacts on certain aspects of visitor experience, namely solitude, would be unavoidable. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0287D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100457, 618 pages and maps on CD-ROM, November 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 10-58 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Big Cypress National Preserve KW - Florida KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ochopee, Florida; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873134040; 14725-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873134040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130533; 14725-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130527; 14725-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130514; 14725-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130502; 14725-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130490; 14725-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130450; 14725-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130436; 14725-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130430; 14725-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130418; 14725-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130401; 14725-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130379; 14725-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130370; 14725-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130234; 14725-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130224; 14725-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Ely, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130212; 14725-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130192; 14725-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130139; 14725-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130129; 14725-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130120; 14725-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130111; 14725-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130089; 14725-5_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873130079; 14725-5_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873130079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873129816; 14725-5_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873129816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873129803; 14725-5_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873129803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873129789; 14725-5_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873129789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873129779; 14725-5_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873129779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 28] T2 - ON LINE PROJECT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELY ENERGY CENTER), CLARK, EUREKA, LINCOLN, NYE AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 873129222; 14725-5_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of rights-of-way (ROWs) to NV Energy for the construction and operation of the One Nevada Transmission Line Project (ON Line Project) in Clark, Eureka, Lincoln, Nye, and White Pine counties, Nevada is proposed. NV Energy's combined service areas cover 54,000 square miles with more than two million customers throughout Nevada and in northeastern California. The ON Line Project facilities were previously proposed as components of the Ely Energy Center (EEC) in 2006 and a draft EIS evaluating the entire EEC was released in January 2009. In February 2009, NV Energy postponed its proposed development of the EEC 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant until such time that carbon capture/sequestration are commercially feasible. The development of the substation, transmission, and communication components between NV Energy's southern and northern service territories and upgrade of existing substations are now referred to as the ON Line Project. The components of the transmission facilities would include: 1) the Robinson Summit 500/345-kilovolt (kV) Substation, approximately 108 acres in size, adjacent to the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP) utility corridor in White Pine County; 2) the One Nevada 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication appurtenances, approximately 236 miles in length, between the proposed Robinson Summit Substation and the existing Harry Allen Substation in Clark County mostly within the SWIP utility corridor; 3) the Falcon-Gonder 345-kV transmission line loop-ins at the Robinson Summit Substation; 4) permanent access roads into the Robinson Summit Substation and within the project area within desert tortoise habitat, and temporary access roads into all facilities along the 236-mile project route; 5) expansion of the existing Falcon Substation on private property in Eureka County to add 345-kV series compensation equipment; and 6) addition of 500-kV electrical connection equipment within the existing footprint of the Harry Allen Substation in Clark County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and an action alternative that would consist of all of the same facilities as described under the proposed action, except that the 500-kV transmission line and telecommunication facilities would follow a parallel route alignment approximately 1,800 feet to the east of the proposed action alignment. The preferred alternative is the same as the proposed action except that the location for the Robinson Summit Substation would be shifted approximately 4 miles south of the proposed location in order to avoid ROW conflicts. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would meet the electrical transmission needs in Nevada and the western United States by interconnecting NV Energy's northern and southern service areas. The connection would improve system reliability and flexibility by allowing service areas to share energy resources, be more efficient, better support each other during power emergencies, and provide better access to the state's renewable energy resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The facility site and transmission lines would displace other existing and potential desert land uses. Clearing along the ROWs would displace rangeland vegetation that supports livestock grazing and provides habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, bighorn sheep, small mammals, reptiles, migratory birds, and upland game birds. Transmission line segments would cross desert tortoise habitat. 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 abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 08-0064D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 09-0363D, Volume 33, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100455, Volume 1--390 pages and maps, Volume 2--417 pages and maps, November 23, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-59 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Grazing KW - Livestock KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ely Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873129222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=ON+LINE+PROJECT+%28PREVIOUSLY+KNOWN+AS+ELY+ENERGY+CENTER%29%2C+CLARK%2C+EUREKA%2C+LINCOLN%2C+NYE+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 23, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERGUSON SLIDE PERMANENT RESTORATION PROJECT, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FERGUSON SLIDE PERMANENT RESTORATION PROJECT, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133348; 14716-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of full highway access between Mariposa and El Portal via State Route 140 (SR 140) in Mariposa County, California is proposed. The project would involve repairing or permanently bypassing the 0.7 mile segment of SR 140 that was blocked or damaged by the Ferguson rockslide. Within the limits of the proposed project and prior to the Ferguson rockslide, SR 140 was a two-lane, undivided highway. Since April 2006, rockslides have covered the highway with 798,000 tons of rock and debris closing SR 140 to traffic from eight miles east of Briceburg to 7.6 miles west of El Portal. Following the rockslide and the completion of a temporary detour, SR 140 now bridges the Merced RIver, bypassing the rockslide, as a one-lane road. This bypass route provides for one-directional traffic that is controlled by signalized lights. Six build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative C would involve construction of an open-cut realignment. The highway would be realigned to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River and bypassing the rockslide. SR 140 would cut through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Alternative T would utilize a tunnel realignment to bypass the rockslide. SR 140 would tunnel 700 feet through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Under Alternative T-3, a 2,200-foot-long tunnel would be constructed under the area of the slide. Alternative S would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. Alternative S-2 is similar to Alternative S and would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. This alternative differs from Alternative S in that it proposes two bridge type variations along with their own specific roadway alignments. The first (S2-V1) would construct two tied-arch bridges, which use an arch structure with cables above the bridge deck for support. The second (S2-V2) would construct two slant-leg bridges, which use V-shaped columns to support the bridge deck. Alternative R would involve construction of a rockshed (cut-and-cover tunnel) through the talus (foundation layer) of the slide along the existing SR 140 alignment. The removal of rock material would range from 8,300 cubic yards for Alternative S to 320,000 cubic yards for Alternative C. Estimated project costs range from $34.6 for Alternative S to $179.2 million for Alternative T-3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permanent restoration of SR 140 would eliminate the detour and provide full access to all types of travelers, ranging from recreational to business, between the town of Mariposa and Yosemite National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities may temporarily and indirectly affect hardhead fish as the soil is stirred up and creates cloudiness within the river. All the build alternatives would remove potential bat foraging and roosting habitat. Alternatives R and T-3 would remove 2.10 acres and 0.45 acre of limestone salamander habitat, respectively, resulting in the likely take of the animal itself. Alternatives R and T-3 would cut into the slopes on the south side of the river impacting habitat for the special-status plant species Tompkins sedge, Mariposa clarkia, Merced clarkia, and smallflower monkeyflower. Alternatives C, T, and S would impede the free-flowing nature of the Wild and Scenic-designated Merced River by constructing bridge piers within the wild and scenic river boundaries. Additional impacts could occur because the proposed bridge piers would also be placed in the river flow, obstructing whitewater rafting. The larger concrete bridge elements of Alternatives C, T, S, and S-2 would moderately decrease the visual quality of the landscape within the project area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100446, 277 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Drilling KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Recreation KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Fresno, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERGUSON SLIDE PERMANENT RESTORATION PROJECT, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16379473; 14716 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of full highway access between Mariposa and El Portal via State Route 140 (SR 140) in Mariposa County, California is proposed. The project would involve repairing or permanently bypassing the 0.7 mile segment of SR 140 that was blocked or damaged by the Ferguson rockslide. Within the limits of the proposed project and prior to the Ferguson rockslide, SR 140 was a two-lane, undivided highway. Since April 2006, rockslides have covered the highway with 798,000 tons of rock and debris closing SR 140 to traffic from eight miles east of Briceburg to 7.6 miles west of El Portal. Following the rockslide and the completion of a temporary detour, SR 140 now bridges the Merced RIver, bypassing the rockslide, as a one-lane road. This bypass route provides for one-directional traffic that is controlled by signalized lights. Six build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative C would involve construction of an open-cut realignment. The highway would be realigned to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River and bypassing the rockslide. SR 140 would cut through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Alternative T would utilize a tunnel realignment to bypass the rockslide. SR 140 would tunnel 700 feet through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Under Alternative T-3, a 2,200-foot-long tunnel would be constructed under the area of the slide. Alternative S would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. Alternative S-2 is similar to Alternative S and would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. This alternative differs from Alternative S in that it proposes two bridge type variations along with their own specific roadway alignments. The first (S2-V1) would construct two tied-arch bridges, which use an arch structure with cables above the bridge deck for support. The second (S2-V2) would construct two slant-leg bridges, which use V-shaped columns to support the bridge deck. Alternative R would involve construction of a rockshed (cut-and-cover tunnel) through the talus (foundation layer) of the slide along the existing SR 140 alignment. The removal of rock material would range from 8,300 cubic yards for Alternative S to 320,000 cubic yards for Alternative C. Estimated project costs range from $34.6 for Alternative S to $179.2 million for Alternative T-3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permanent restoration of SR 140 would eliminate the detour and provide full access to all types of travelers, ranging from recreational to business, between the town of Mariposa and Yosemite National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities may temporarily and indirectly affect hardhead fish as the soil is stirred up and creates cloudiness within the river. All the build alternatives would remove potential bat foraging and roosting habitat. Alternatives R and T-3 would remove 2.10 acres and 0.45 acre of limestone salamander habitat, respectively, resulting in the likely take of the animal itself. Alternatives R and T-3 would cut into the slopes on the south side of the river impacting habitat for the special-status plant species Tompkins sedge, Mariposa clarkia, Merced clarkia, and smallflower monkeyflower. Alternatives C, T, and S would impede the free-flowing nature of the Wild and Scenic-designated Merced River by constructing bridge piers within the wild and scenic river boundaries. Additional impacts could occur because the proposed bridge piers would also be placed in the river flow, obstructing whitewater rafting. The larger concrete bridge elements of Alternatives C, T, S, and S-2 would moderately decrease the visual quality of the landscape within the project area. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100446, 277 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Drilling KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Recreation KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - California Department of Transportation, Fresno, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133682; 14714-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which would have an estimated footprint of approximately 1,600 acres that would house the solar field, administration buildings, evaporation pond, generation transmission tie line, substation, and ancillary facilities. The proposed solar power project would employ concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 110 megawatts. The projects proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation. Tonopah Solar Energy has executed a power purchase agreement with NV Energy for sale of the electricity produced from the facility which it expects to operate for approximately 30 years. In addition to the proposed action, this abbreviated final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternative locations for the project. Alternative 1 was proposed by the Air Force to minimize impacts on training at the Nevada Test and Training Range and would involve locating the center of the project 1.85 miles north of the center as proposed by Tonopah Solar Energy. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, the center would be located 2.4 miles west of the center as proposed by Tonopah Solar Energy in order to minimize impacts on soils and other resources near the Crescent Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would contribute on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western states where demand continues to grow. Thermal storage capability would allow renewable electricity to be produced even when the peak demand period extends into the late evening hours. Approximately 1,500 jobs would be created, thus generating $140 million of personal income in Nevada annually; and $160 million would be added to the gross state product annually during the peak of construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Topsoil and vegetation would be removed during grading of 1,628 to 1,673 acres and an additional 167 to 213 acres would be temporarily disturbed. Construction would directly impact Nevada oryctes, a BLM sensitive plant species. Direct effects to pale kangaroo mice and bats could result from salt water in the evaporation ponds, although active management will help ensure that wildlife are excluded from the ponds. Impacts to Golden eagles and other migratory birds would include potential injury or mortality due to the operation of the facility and transmission line and the removal of potential foraging habit. Potential impacts to surface water include increased runoff flows, increased sediment transport, increased discharge and transport of contaminants, or possible affects to drainage paths or altered flow. Development of the proposed action would impact four historic properties. Visual impacts for the Crescent Dunes recreational area would be major. 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: 100444, 240 pages, November 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873132672; 14711-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC) between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide a permanent facility on a five-acre parcel within the grounds of the Washington Monument. The Tier I final EIS for the project addressed potential effects of six massing alternatives that varied in siting and mass, orientation, form, exterior spaces, and profiles, as well as a No Build Alternative. The Tier I EIS process concluded with a Smithsonian Record of Decision in 2008 and a set of design principles to guide the development of specific concepts for the building that would permanently house the museum collection. Since November 2009, several different architectural concepts have been developed for the NMAAHC. This Tier II draft EIS analyzes four specific build alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative under which the project site would continue be managed and maintained as parkland. The build alternatives each feature a Corona as the defining form of the visible building structure and the primary location for the galleries. Generally, four interior levels would be housed within the Corona and each alternative would feature two museum levels below grade. A primary entrance on the south side of the site would feature a hardscape plaza; service access and limited vehicular access would be provided from 14th Street. The building would incorporate several integrated strategies for sustainability, including: passive heating and cooling, day lighting, comprehensive stormwater management, and energy conservation. Alternative 1 would employ a plinth concept. The Corona would sit atop a plinth that accommodates a large ground floor program and frames the ground floor glass enclosure. Alternative 2 is based on a plaza concept and would divide the exhibit functions and administrative functions of NMAAHC into two distinct buildings on the site: the Corona and the northern building. The primary purpose of this alternative is to preserve views of the Washington Monument from the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 3, the pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 1, but without the plinth. Alternative 4, the refined pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 3, but would feature a Corona with reduced above-grade dimensions and would include entries on both the north and south sides of the site. The build alternatives would involve construction ranging from 294,000 gross square feet for Alternative 4 to 370,000 gross square feet for Alternative 2, and building heights of 108 feet to 121.5 feet above grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of African-American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation would be removed and the viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0345F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100441, 329 pages on CD-ROM, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: SI 0495801A KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Buildings KW - Historic Sites KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND CULTURE, BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREETS AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE AND MADISON DRIVE IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (TIER II DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16379423; 14711 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture (NMAAHC) between 14th and 15th streets and Constitution Avenue and Madison Drive in Northwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed by the Smithsonian Institution. The project would provide a permanent facility on a five-acre parcel within the grounds of the Washington Monument. The Tier I final EIS for the project addressed potential effects of six massing alternatives that varied in siting and mass, orientation, form, exterior spaces, and profiles, as well as a No Build Alternative. The Tier I EIS process concluded with a Smithsonian Record of Decision in 2008 and a set of design principles to guide the development of specific concepts for the building that would permanently house the museum collection. Since November 2009, several different architectural concepts have been developed for the NMAAHC. This Tier II draft EIS analyzes four specific build alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative under which the project site would continue be managed and maintained as parkland. The build alternatives each feature a Corona as the defining form of the visible building structure and the primary location for the galleries. Generally, four interior levels would be housed within the Corona and each alternative would feature two museum levels below grade. A primary entrance on the south side of the site would feature a hardscape plaza; service access and limited vehicular access would be provided from 14th Street. The building would incorporate several integrated strategies for sustainability, including: passive heating and cooling, day lighting, comprehensive stormwater management, and energy conservation. Alternative 1 would employ a plinth concept. The Corona would sit atop a plinth that accommodates a large ground floor program and frames the ground floor glass enclosure. Alternative 2 is based on a plaza concept and would divide the exhibit functions and administrative functions of NMAAHC into two distinct buildings on the site: the Corona and the northern building. The primary purpose of this alternative is to preserve views of the Washington Monument from the intersection of Constitution Avenue and 14th Street. Alternative 3, the pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 1, but without the plinth. Alternative 4, the refined pavilion concept, is similar to Alternative 3, but would feature a Corona with reduced above-grade dimensions and would include entries on both the north and south sides of the site. The build alternatives would involve construction ranging from 294,000 gross square feet for Alternative 4 to 370,000 gross square feet for Alternative 2, and building heights of 108 feet to 121.5 feet above grade. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The museum would be dedicated to the collection, preservation, research, and exhibition of African-American historical and cultural materials, reflecting the breadth and depth of the experience of individuals of African descent living in the United States. It would constitute the only institution providing a national meeting place for Americans to learn about the history and culture of African-Americans and their contributions to and relationship with every aspect of our national life. Increased visitation to the District of Columbia due to the attraction of the museum would boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The museum would displace an open space on the Washington Monument grounds of the National Mall, altering the historic boundaries of the grounds and altering the spatial organization of the grounds by diminishing the prominence of the Washington Monument as a central organizing feature. Significant impacts would also occur for buildings and structures located within the Monument grounds as well as the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue. Vegetation would be removed and the viewshed and specific vistas would be altered. The museum would be situated in an area in violation of federal standards regarding ozone and particulate matter. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-184). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 08-0090D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0345F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100441, 329 pages on CD-ROM, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: SI 0495801A KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Buildings KW - Historic Sites KW - Monuments KW - Museums KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - District of Columbia KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Museum of African American History and Culture Act of 2003, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SMITHSONIAN+INSTITUTION+NATIONAL+MUSEUM+OF+AFRICAN-AMERICAN+HISTORY+AND+CULTURE%2C+BETWEEN+14TH+AND+15TH+STREETS+AND+CONSTITUTION+AVENUE+AND+MADISON+DRIVE+IN+NORTHWEST+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+%28TIER+II+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133648; 14705-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873133648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133646; 14705-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873133646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133643; 14705-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873133643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133642; 14705-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873133642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133639; 14705-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873133639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132007; 14705-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873132007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132003; 14705-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873132003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131997; 14705-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873131997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130457; 14705-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873130457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130442; 14705-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873130442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130182; 14705-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873130182?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130149; 14705-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/873130149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 818791529; 14705 AB - PURPOSE: The development of 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 in the Marsh by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in marshwide 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 serves as the resting and feeding ground for thousands of birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway and resident waterfowl. In addition, the Marsh provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Suisun Marsh supports the states commercial salmon fishery by providing important tidal rearing areas for juvenile fish. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Marshs large open space and proximity to urban areas make it ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for Suisun Marsh management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this draft EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. These alternatives vary in the number of acres that would be restored to tidal wetlands and managed wetlands enhanced. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by tidal restoration and managed wetland 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 fully functioning, selfsustaining 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: Implementation would result in generation of construction-related emissions in excess of draft local standards associated with restoration and management activities and exposure of noise-sensitive land uses 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.). JF - EPA number: 100435, Volume Ia--490 pages, Volume Ib--440 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--174 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-58 KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Emissions 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/818791529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130601; 14701-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The re-establishment of access previously provided by Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610 and Dosewallips Road in the Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, Jefferson County, Washington is proposed to allow the public to reach to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) recreational facilities in the area. FSR 2610 is a single-lane road with turnouts, surfaced with aggregate (crushed rock); Dosewallips Road is an extension of FSR 2610 into Olympic National Park. In January 2002, a storm washed out 310 feet of FSR 2610, and the washout increased to 500 feet as measured in December 2007. The washout cutoff road access to five miles of USFS and NPS roads, which had provided access to Elkhorn Campground in the Olympic National Forest and the Dosewallips Ranger Station in the Olympic National Park. Subsequent storms damaged 120 feet of Dosewallips Road about four miles west of the damage to FSR 2610. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to road management, geotechnical and geomorphic processes, soil productivity, aquatic species and habitat conditions, terrestrial species and habitat, botanical species and habitat, invasive plants, access and recreational uses, wilderness values, socioeconomics, visual quality, climate change, soundscapes, and park operations. Originally, the proposed action was to rebuild FSR 2610 through the washout area, including a low-water crossing. Four alternatives, including the original proposal and a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. All action alternatives would re-establish both FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road. Under Alternative B, which is the proposed action, FSR 2610 would be rerouted along the hillslope above and to the north of the washout to restore access for passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers. Approximately 0.84 mile of single-lane road with turnouts would be constructed using standard construction methods. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, FSR 2610 would be rerouted in a similar alignment but retaining structures would be employed to minimize the road's footprint. Estimated reconstruction costs of the project are $2.68 million under Alternative B, $3.96 million under Alternative C, and $9.21 million under Alternative F which would involve construction of a bridge span over the washed out area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Re-establishing the roads would restore motorized access to developed recreation facilities on both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park. Campgrounds would reopen and income for local service businesses would increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and maintenance would result in the disturbance of soils and the destruction of vegetation and the resulting loss of wildlife habitat and increased sediment loadings in receiving flows within the watershed. Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0335D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100431, Final EIS--352 pages, Appendices--165 pages, October 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Olympic National Forest KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympia, Washington; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - DOSEWALLIPS ROAD WASHOUT PROJECT, HOOD CANAL RANGER DISTRICT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130574; 14701-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The re-establishment of access previously provided by Forest Service Road (FSR) 2610 and Dosewallips Road in the Hood Canal Ranger District, Olympic National Forest and Olympic National Park, Jefferson County, Washington is proposed to allow the public to reach to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) recreational facilities in the area. FSR 2610 is a single-lane road with turnouts, surfaced with aggregate (crushed rock); Dosewallips Road is an extension of FSR 2610 into Olympic National Park. In January 2002, a storm washed out 310 feet of FSR 2610, and the washout increased to 500 feet as measured in December 2007. The washout cutoff road access to five miles of USFS and NPS roads, which had provided access to Elkhorn Campground in the Olympic National Forest and the Dosewallips Ranger Station in the Olympic National Park. Subsequent storms damaged 120 feet of Dosewallips Road about four miles west of the damage to FSR 2610. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to road management, geotechnical and geomorphic processes, soil productivity, aquatic species and habitat conditions, terrestrial species and habitat, botanical species and habitat, invasive plants, access and recreational uses, wilderness values, socioeconomics, visual quality, climate change, soundscapes, and park operations. Originally, the proposed action was to rebuild FSR 2610 through the washout area, including a low-water crossing. Four alternatives, including the original proposal and a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. All action alternatives would re-establish both FSR 2610 and Dosewallips Road. Under Alternative B, which is the proposed action, FSR 2610 would be rerouted along the hillslope above and to the north of the washout to restore access for passenger cars, recreational vehicles, and vehicles pulling trailers. Approximately 0.84 mile of single-lane road with turnouts would be constructed using standard construction methods. Under Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, FSR 2610 would be rerouted in a similar alignment but retaining structures would be employed to minimize the road's footprint. Estimated reconstruction costs of the project are $2.68 million under Alternative B, $3.96 million under Alternative C, and $9.21 million under Alternative F which would involve construction of a bridge span over the washed out area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Re-establishing the roads would restore motorized access to developed recreation facilities on both the Olympic National Forest and the Olympic National Park. Campgrounds would reopen and income for local service businesses would increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Road construction and maintenance would result in the disturbance of soils and the destruction of vegetation and the resulting loss of wildlife habitat and increased sediment loadings in receiving flows within the watershed. Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0335D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100431, Final EIS--352 pages, Appendices--165 pages, October 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Olympic National Forest KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=DOSEWALLIPS+ROAD+WASHOUT+PROJECT%2C+HOOD+CANAL+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Olympia, Washington; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, GRANT, ADAMS, WALLA WALLA, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, GRANT, ADAMS, WALLA WALLA, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 873132595; 14704-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of groundwater used for irrigation in the Odessa Ground Water Management Subarea with Columbia Basin Project (CBP) surface water as a solution to declining groundwater levels in Grant, Adams, Franklin and Lincoln counties, Washington is proposed. The CBP, located in central Washington, was authorized for the irrigation of 1.03 million acres. Currently, the project serves about 671,000 acres in Grant, Adams, Franklin and Walla Walla counties. The multipurpose project provides irrigation, power production, flood control, municipal water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Irrigated acreage was developed primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, with some acreage added sporadically until 1985. 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. Domestic, commercial, municipal, and industrial uses, and water quality are also affected. A No Action Alternative, four partial-replacement alternatives, and four full-replacement alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternatives consist of combinations of two water delivery options and four water supply options. Water delivery options include an expanded East Low Canal with a 2.5 mile extension that would provide surface water to 57,069 acres south of Interstate 90 (I-90) and east of the East Low Canal by a system of pipe laterals and pumping plants. The second option would provide surface water to 45,545 acres currently irrigated with groundwater north of I-90 and east of the East Low Canal. This alternative includes construction of the East High Canal from above Billy Clapp Lake to a point about 15 miles east of Moses Lake, construction of the Black Rock re-regulation reservoir, and construction of the Black Rock Branch Canal from the proposed Black Rock re-regulating reservoir to about 21 miles east of Moses Lake, Washington. Water would be delivered via a system of pumping plants and pipe laterals to irrigate land from Billy Clapp Lake to I-90. The four water supply options under consideration would use storage from Banks Lake, Lake Roosevelt, or a new Rocky Coulee Reservoir, either individually or in combination, as follows: Option A, Banks Lake, would use storage in and additional drawdowns from Banks Lake, exclusively; Option B, Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt, would use existing storage in Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt, resulting in drawdowns from both reservoirs; Option C, Banks Lake and Rocky Coulee Reservoir, would use existing storage in Banks Lake, plus a new Rocky Coulee Reservoir; and Option D, Banks Lake, Lake Roosevelt, and Rocky Coulee Reservoir, would use a combination of all three storage facilities. Total estimated costs for the action alternatives range from $841.6 million to $3.3 billion. Annual operational costs range from $3.3 million to $17.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address declining groundwater supply for agriculture and other uses and avoid significant economic loss to the region's agricultural sector. Based on hydrologic modeling, none of the action alternatives would result in a significant change in Columbia River flows. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New facilities would significantly impact native plant communities, including shrub-steppe habitat, and several special status species, including migratory birds. Drawdowns would result in substantially more exposure of Banks Lake littoral habitat in some years and would have a significant impact on invertebrate production. Overall, the temporary dewatering of benthic macroinvertebraes is not expected to affect fish populations in the lake. Land acquisition requirements would be significant, and substantially higher for alternatives that include Rocky Coulee Reservoir. Recreation facilities and activities at Banks Lake would be impacted in August and September in average years. 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). JF - EPA number: 100434, 711 pages and maps, October 26, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: INT-DES 10-54 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 - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife 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/873132595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ODESSA+SUBAREA+SPECIAL+STUDY%2C+COLUMBIA+BASIN+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+ADAMS%2C+WALLA+WALLA%2C+AND+FRANKLIN+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ODESSA+SUBAREA+SPECIAL+STUDY%2C+COLUMBIA+BASIN+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+ADAMS%2C+WALLA+WALLA%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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, GRANT, ADAMS, WALLA WALLA, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 818791518; 14704 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of groundwater used for irrigation in the Odessa Ground Water Management Subarea with Columbia Basin Project (CBP) surface water as a solution to declining groundwater levels in Grant, Adams, Franklin and Lincoln counties, Washington is proposed. The CBP, located in central Washington, was authorized for the irrigation of 1.03 million acres. Currently, the project serves about 671,000 acres in Grant, Adams, Franklin and Walla Walla counties. The multipurpose project provides irrigation, power production, flood control, municipal water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Irrigated acreage was developed primarily in the 1950s and 1960s, with some acreage added sporadically until 1985. 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. Domestic, commercial, municipal, and industrial uses, and water quality are also affected. A No Action Alternative, four partial-replacement alternatives, and four full-replacement alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternatives consist of combinations of two water delivery options and four water supply options. Water delivery options include an expanded East Low Canal with a 2.5 mile extension that would provide surface water to 57,069 acres south of Interstate 90 (I-90) and east of the East Low Canal by a system of pipe laterals and pumping plants. The second option would provide surface water to 45,545 acres currently irrigated with groundwater north of I-90 and east of the East Low Canal. This alternative includes construction of the East High Canal from above Billy Clapp Lake to a point about 15 miles east of Moses Lake, construction of the Black Rock re-regulation reservoir, and construction of the Black Rock Branch Canal from the proposed Black Rock re-regulating reservoir to about 21 miles east of Moses Lake, Washington. Water would be delivered via a system of pumping plants and pipe laterals to irrigate land from Billy Clapp Lake to I-90. The four water supply options under consideration would use storage from Banks Lake, Lake Roosevelt, or a new Rocky Coulee Reservoir, either individually or in combination, as follows: Option A, Banks Lake, would use storage in and additional drawdowns from Banks Lake, exclusively; Option B, Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt, would use existing storage in Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt, resulting in drawdowns from both reservoirs; Option C, Banks Lake and Rocky Coulee Reservoir, would use existing storage in Banks Lake, plus a new Rocky Coulee Reservoir; and Option D, Banks Lake, Lake Roosevelt, and Rocky Coulee Reservoir, would use a combination of all three storage facilities. Total estimated costs for the action alternatives range from $841.6 million to $3.3 billion. Annual operational costs range from $3.3 million to $17.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address declining groundwater supply for agriculture and other uses and avoid significant economic loss to the region's agricultural sector. Based on hydrologic modeling, none of the action alternatives would result in a significant change in Columbia River flows. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New facilities would significantly impact native plant communities, including shrub-steppe habitat, and several special status species, including migratory birds. Drawdowns would result in substantially more exposure of Banks Lake littoral habitat in some years and would have a significant impact on invertebrate production. Overall, the temporary dewatering of benthic macroinvertebraes is not expected to affect fish populations in the lake. Land acquisition requirements would be significant, and substantially higher for alternatives that include Rocky Coulee Reservoir. Recreation facilities and activities at Banks Lake would be impacted in August and September in average years. 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). JF - EPA number: 100434, 711 pages and maps, October 26, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: INT-DES 10-54 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 - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife 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/818791518?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ODESSA+SUBAREA+SPECIAL+STUDY%2C+COLUMBIA+BASIN+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+ADAMS%2C+WALLA+WALLA%2C+AND+FRANKLIN+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ODESSA+SUBAREA+SPECIAL+STUDY%2C+COLUMBIA+BASIN+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+ADAMS%2C+WALLA+WALLA%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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 26, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133668; 14697-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133667; 14697-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133663; 14697-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133661; 14697-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133656; 14697-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133654; 14697-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133652; 14697-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133650; 14697-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133335; 14697-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133329; 14697-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133316; 14697-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873132661; 14697-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873132658; 14697-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873132012; 14697-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 818791512; 14697 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818791512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RICE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RICE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132985; 14686-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 150-megawatt (MW) solar electric power plant, a 10-mile long 230-kilovolt (kV) generation tie line, and an interconnection substation on private and public lands in unincorporated eastern Riverside County, California are proposed. Rice Solar Energy (RSE) has applied for certification to the California Energy Commission for the proposed plant and has submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the generator tie-line, substation, access road, and fiber optic line which would be constructed on federal land. RSE has applied to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the proposed Rice Solar Energy Project (RSEP) to Westerns transmission system with a tie-line that would extend from the southern boundary of the solar facility to a new substation to be constructed adjacent to Westerns existing Parker-Blythe #2 transmission line. RSE also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed RSEP. The site is located 32 miles west of Parker, Arizona and 40 miles northwest of Blythe, California. The nearest community is Vidal Junction, approximately 15 miles northeast. The site is adjacent to State Route 62 (SR 62), which parallels a portion of the Arizona-California Railroad and the Colorado River Aqueduct, near the junction of SR 62 and Blythe-Midland Road, and near the sparse remains of the abandoned town of Rice, California. The power plant would occupy 1,410 acres of a larger 2,560-acre parcel on private land located immediately south of, SR 62, and would occupy about 99 acres of federal land. The RSEP would be a concentrating solar thermal power plant consisting of a field of up to 17,500 heliostats focusing solar energy on a solar receiver heat exchanger located on one centralized power tower. Each heliostat tracks the sun throughout the day and reflects the solar energy to the receiver. The project features thermal energy storage that allows solar energy to be captured throughout the day and retained in a liquid salt heat transfer fluid. When electricity is to be generated, the hot liquid salt is routed to a series of heat exchangers to heat water and produce steam. The steam is used to generate electricity in a conventional steam turbine cycle that would utilize an air-cooled condenser to minimize water consumption. RSEP would generate annual energy of 450,000 MW-hours per year during periods of peak energy demands. The primary components of the power plant site would include the heliostat field, a 653-foot high central tower and receiver, hot and cold liquid salt storage tanks, a steam-turbine generator and associated equipment, a 20-cell air-cooled condenser, two on-site water wells, three evaporation ponds to capture and evaporate process wastewater, two storm water detention basins, an electrical switchyard, and associated administration and maintenance facilities. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative, a reduced acreage alternative, and two alternative sites. The North of Desert Center Alternative would reduce impacts to cultural resources associated with Rice Army Airfield. The SR 62/Rice Valley Road Alternative would have reduced wildlife habitat impacts and reduced access road construction requirements. Approval of the proposed project would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plant would provide 450,000 MW-hours of cost-competitive renewable energy power and help to meet California's renewable portfolio standard. Electricity produced by RSEP would displace fossil-fuel derived power and reduce the need to operate less efficient peaking power plants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would eliminate or degrade native vegetation, result in the permanent land use conversion of 1,770 acres of habitat, and cause temporary or long-term effects to contiguous habitat north of the solar generator site and along the transmission line alignments. The majority of the alignment crosses creosote bush scrub, but it also appears to cross dunes in Rice Valley and numerous washes, some of which may support desert riparian or microphyll wash woodland. With mitigation measures, adverse effects to desert tortoise are expected to be less than significant. Significant impacts to the features and artifact concentrations associated with Rice Army Airfield would occur under the proposed alternative. Operational visual impacts of the RSEP in combination with past and foreseeable future projects would be potentially significant and unmitigable, particularly to motorists on SR 62, and to visitors to the areas many wilderness areas and Joshua Tree National Park. Night light pollution in the project area could become cumulatively considerable. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100416, 1,538 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0439 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RICE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 815276468; 14686 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 150-megawatt (MW) solar electric power plant, a 10-mile long 230-kilovolt (kV) generation tie line, and an interconnection substation on private and public lands in unincorporated eastern Riverside County, California are proposed. Rice Solar Energy (RSE) has applied for certification to the California Energy Commission for the proposed plant and has submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the generator tie-line, substation, access road, and fiber optic line which would be constructed on federal land. RSE has applied to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the proposed Rice Solar Energy Project (RSEP) to Westerns transmission system with a tie-line that would extend from the southern boundary of the solar facility to a new substation to be constructed adjacent to Westerns existing Parker-Blythe #2 transmission line. RSE also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program seeking a guarantee for the proposed RSEP. The site is located 32 miles west of Parker, Arizona and 40 miles northwest of Blythe, California. The nearest community is Vidal Junction, approximately 15 miles northeast. The site is adjacent to State Route 62 (SR 62), which parallels a portion of the Arizona-California Railroad and the Colorado River Aqueduct, near the junction of SR 62 and Blythe-Midland Road, and near the sparse remains of the abandoned town of Rice, California. The power plant would occupy 1,410 acres of a larger 2,560-acre parcel on private land located immediately south of, SR 62, and would occupy about 99 acres of federal land. The RSEP would be a concentrating solar thermal power plant consisting of a field of up to 17,500 heliostats focusing solar energy on a solar receiver heat exchanger located on one centralized power tower. Each heliostat tracks the sun throughout the day and reflects the solar energy to the receiver. The project features thermal energy storage that allows solar energy to be captured throughout the day and retained in a liquid salt heat transfer fluid. When electricity is to be generated, the hot liquid salt is routed to a series of heat exchangers to heat water and produce steam. The steam is used to generate electricity in a conventional steam turbine cycle that would utilize an air-cooled condenser to minimize water consumption. RSEP would generate annual energy of 450,000 MW-hours per year during periods of peak energy demands. The primary components of the power plant site would include the heliostat field, a 653-foot high central tower and receiver, hot and cold liquid salt storage tanks, a steam-turbine generator and associated equipment, a 20-cell air-cooled condenser, two on-site water wells, three evaporation ponds to capture and evaporate process wastewater, two storm water detention basins, an electrical switchyard, and associated administration and maintenance facilities. In addition to the proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative, a reduced acreage alternative, and two alternative sites. The North of Desert Center Alternative would reduce impacts to cultural resources associated with Rice Army Airfield. The SR 62/Rice Valley Road Alternative would have reduced wildlife habitat impacts and reduced access road construction requirements. Approval of the proposed project would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plant would provide 450,000 MW-hours of cost-competitive renewable energy power and help to meet California's renewable portfolio standard. Electricity produced by RSEP would displace fossil-fuel derived power and reduce the need to operate less efficient peaking power plants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the project would eliminate or degrade native vegetation, result in the permanent land use conversion of 1,770 acres of habitat, and cause temporary or long-term effects to contiguous habitat north of the solar generator site and along the transmission line alignments. The majority of the alignment crosses creosote bush scrub, but it also appears to cross dunes in Rice Valley and numerous washes, some of which may support desert riparian or microphyll wash woodland. With mitigation measures, adverse effects to desert tortoise are expected to be less than significant. Significant impacts to the features and artifact concentrations associated with Rice Army Airfield would occur under the proposed alternative. Operational visual impacts of the RSEP in combination with past and foreseeable future projects would be potentially significant and unmitigable, particularly to motorists on SR 62, and to visitors to the areas many wilderness areas and Joshua Tree National Park. Night light pollution in the project area could become cumulatively considerable. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100416, 1,538 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0439 KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Sources KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/815276468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RICE+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 78 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133967; 14684-3_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 63 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133966; 14684-3_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 62 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133965; 14684-3_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 61 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133963; 14684-3_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 59 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133957; 14684-3_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 58 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133955; 14684-3_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 57 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133954; 14684-3_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 56 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133948; 14684-3_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 55 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133944; 14684-3_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 38 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133909; 14684-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 37 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133906; 14684-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 36 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133902; 14684-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 35 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133899; 14684-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 34 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133897; 14684-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 33 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133896; 14684-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133896?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 32 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133893; 14684-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 19 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133886; 14684-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 18 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133885; 14684-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133882; 14684-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133876; 14684-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 60 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133425; 14684-3_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 54 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133324; 14684-3_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 53 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133318; 14684-3_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 52 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133307; 14684-3_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 48 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133302; 14684-3_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 47 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133293; 14684-3_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 44 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133286; 14684-3_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 31 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133176; 14684-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 30 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133167; 14684-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 29 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133161; 14684-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 25 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133150; 14684-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 24 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133144; 14684-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 21 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133141; 14684-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 20 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873133132; 14684-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 68 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132486; 14684-3_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 67 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132474; 14684-3_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 46 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132459; 14684-3_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 45 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132439; 14684-3_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 43 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132285; 14684-3_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Children%27s+Literature+in+Education%3A+An+International+Quarterly&rft.atitle=A+Bicultural+Study+of+Identification%3A+Readers%27+Responses+to+the+Ironic+Treatment+of+a+National+Hero&rft.au=Bunbury%2C+Rhonda%3BTabbert%2C+Reinbert&rft.aulast=Bunbury&rft.aufirst=Rhonda&rft.date=1989-03-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=25&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Children%27s+Literature+in+Education%3A+An+International+Quarterly&rft.issn=00456713&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2FBF01128038 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 42 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132275; 14684-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 23 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132261; 14684-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 22 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132249; 14684-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Textual+Cultures%3A+Texts%2C+Contexts%2C+Interpretation&rft.atitle=Revision+and+Competing+Voices+in+D.+H.+Lawrence%27s+Collaborations+with+Women&rft.au=McDonald%2C+Russell&rft.aulast=McDonald&rft.aufirst=Russell&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Textual+Cultures%3A+Texts%2C+Contexts%2C+Interpretation&rft.issn=15592936&rft_id=info:doi/10.2979%2FTEX.2009.4.1.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 17 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132232; 14684-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 16 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132218; 14684-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 15 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873132206; 14684-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 71 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873131188; 14684-3_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 70 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873131177; 14684-3_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 69 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873131160; 14684-3_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 87 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130476; 14684-3_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 84 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130453; 14684-3_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 83 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130435; 14684-3_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 76 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130423; 14684-3_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 75 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130405; 14684-3_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 82 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130373; 14684-3_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 81 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130341; 14684-3_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 80 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130310; 14684-3_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 12 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130262; 14684-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 51 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130261; 14684-3_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 50 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130243; 14684-3_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 10 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130237; 14684-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 66 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130221; 14684-3_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 49 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130206; 14684-3_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 65 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130199; 14684-3_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130196; 14684-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 64 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130177; 14684-3_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 77 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130171; 14684-3_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=European+Journal+of+Developmental+Psychology&rft.atitle=Social+antecedents+of+children%27s+implicit+prejudice%3A+Direct+contact%2C+extended+contact%2C+explicit+and+implicit+teachers%27+prejudice&rft.au=Vezzali%2C+Loris%3BGiovannini%2C+Dino%3BCapozza%2C+Dora&rft.aulast=Vezzali&rft.aufirst=Loris&rft.date=2012-09-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=569&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=European+Journal+of+Developmental+Psychology&rft.issn=17405629&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F17405629.2011.631298 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 8 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130142; 14684-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 41 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130125; 14684-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 7 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130118; 14684-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 40 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130102; 14684-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 74 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130095; 14684-3_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Obesity&rft.atitle=Implicit+and+explicit+weight+bias+in+a+national+sample+of+4%2C732+medical+students%3A+The+medical+student+CHANGES+study&rft.au=Phelan%2C+Sean+M.%3BDovidio%2C+John+F.%3BPuhl%2C+Rebecca+M.%3BBurgess%2C+Diana+J.%3BNelson%2C+David+B.%3BYeazel%2C+Mark+W.%3BHardeman%2C+Rachel%3BPerry%2C+Sylvia%3BRyn%2C+Michelle&rft.aulast=Phelan&rft.aufirst=Sean&rft.date=2014-04-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1201&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Obesity&rft.issn=19307381&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Foby.20687 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 28 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130092; 14684-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 6 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130083; 14684-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+biases+against+Latinos+and+African+Americans+among+primary+care+providers+and+community+members&rft.au=Blair%2C+Irene+V.%3BHavranek%2C+Edward+P.%3BPrice%2C+David+W.%3BHanratty%2C+Rebecca%3BFairclough%2C+Diane+L.%3BFarley%2C+Tillman%3BHirsh%2C+Holen+K.%3BSteiner%2C+John+F.&rft.aulast=Blair&rft.aufirst=Irene&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=92&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&rft.issn=00900036&rft_id=info:doi/10.2105%2FAJPH.2012.300812 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 73 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130076; 14684-3_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 39 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130071; 14684-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 27 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130063; 14684-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130056; 14684-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 26 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873130039; 14684-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 14 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873129923; 14684-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 88 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873129724; 14684-3_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 86 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873129691; 14684-3_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 85 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873129662; 14684-3_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 13 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873129482; 14684-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+General+Internal+Medicine&rft.atitle=Implicit+bias+among+physicians+and+its+prediction+of+thrombolysis+decisions+for+Black+and+White+patients&rft.au=Green%2C+Alexander+R.%3BCarney%2C+Dana+R.%3BPallin%2C+Daniel+J.%3BNgo%2C+Long+H.%3BRaymond%2C+Kristal+L.%3BIezzoni%2C+Lisa+I.%3BBanaji%2C+Mahzarin+R.&rft.aulast=Green&rft.aufirst=Alexander&rft.date=2007-09-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=5275&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Human+Brain+Mapping&rft.issn=10659471&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fhbm.23010 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. [Part 11 of 88] T2 - CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK CONVEYANCE OF LANDS INTO TRUST, CAYUGA AND SENECA COUNTIES, NEW YORK. AN - 873129433; 14684-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of a 125-acre fee-to-trust property transfer to be held on behalf of the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York (the Nation) is proposed. The property is comprised of separate parcels located in the Village of Union Springs and the Town of Springport in Cayuga County, and the Town of Seneca Falls in Seneca County. A 0.018-acre parcel of land in the Town of Montezuma which was evaluated in the draft EIS has been withdrawn from the fee-to-trust application. The Nation owns several businesses located on its ancestral lands which generate revenue to fund tribal programs and services. The nation has generated additional revenues at these sites through the operation of two Class II gaming facilities. Operations at the gaming facilities were temporarily suspended in 2005 due to potential litigation, but the Nation intends to reopen the facilities as the revenues are critical to plans for economic self-sufficiency. The property in Seneca Falls consists of three tax lots comprising 13.98 acres which support the Nations LakeSide Enterprise operations including a gas station and convenience store, and LakeSide Entertainment, which is the gaming operation. The Union Springs property is comprised of four tax parcels totaling 111 acres and consists of vacant land, LakeSide Trading (convenience store/gas station), LakeSide Entertainment, and LakeSide car wash. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water resources, air quality, environmental contamination, community services, traffic, and visual resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) under which the Nation's properties would not be taken into trust by the United States, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the Nation would continue use of its properties for multiple purposes, including convenience store and gas station operations, gaming facilities, a car wash, and related activities. The Nation would reopen its two Class II gaming facilities located in Union Springs and Seneca Falls which together would comprise 119 Class II gaming machines. As trust land, the Nation's property would not be subject to state or local taxation, it would be protected against alienation, and the Nation would assert sovereignty over the subject properties. Under the Enterprise Properties Into Trust Alternative (Alternative 3), the five parcels of land in Seneca Falls and Union Springs would be taken and held into trust, the Nation's commercial enterprises would continue to operate, and the gaming facilities would reopen. The Nation's non-enterprise property in Springport would not be taken into federal trust. The direct effect on the local economy from the annual operation of the proposed action is estimated at $3.1 million, an increase of approximately $1.3 million over existing operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would address the Cayuga Nation's need for cultural and social preservation, political self-determination, self-sufficiency, and economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Local county and school district taxes would no longer be levied on the properties transferred to the federal government as trust properties, but, with the exception of the Town of Springport (2.6 percent), those taxes constitute less than one percent of tax revenues for the affected jurisdictions. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 465 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0209D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100413, Final EIS--201 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Buildings KW - Economic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - New York KW - Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=CAYUGA+INDIAN+NATION+OF+NEW+YORK+CONVEYANCE+OF+LANDS+INTO+TRUST%2C+CAYUGA+AND+SENECA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nashville, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132894; 14678-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132888; 14678-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132876; 14678-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132315; 14678-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132105; 14678-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132099; 14678-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131724; 14678-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131719; 14678-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Psychological+Inquiry&rft.atitle=Attributions+of+Implicit+Prejudice%2C+or+%22Would+Jesse+Jackson+%27Fail%27+the+Implicit+Association+Test%3F%22&rft.au=Arkes%2C+Hal+R.%3BTetlock%2C+Philip+E.&rft.aulast=Arkes&rft.aufirst=Hal&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=257&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Psychological+Inquiry&rft.issn=1047840X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1207%2Fs15327965pli1504_01 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131710; 14678-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130293; 14678-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130280; 14678-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130130; 14678-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129906; 14678-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129424; 14678-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129413; 14678-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. AN - 873129343; 14679-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the country, with geologic plays extending offshore from some of the largest oil and gas fields on Alaska's North Slope. The current federal assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. It involved 6,156 whole and partial blocks within the planning area, covering 34 million acres. BOEM accepted high bids of approximately $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for approximately 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. A January, 2008 lawsuit challenged the sale and the United States District Court for the District of Alaska remanded Sale 193 for further analysis of the environmental impact of natural gas development and of missing or incomplete information within the final EIS. This draft supplemental EIS carries forward the alternatives and augments the analysis of the final EIS. The scenario for environmental analysis involves the discovery, development, and production of the first offshore oil and gas field in the Chukchi Sea. Under the proposed action ( Alternative I), all 34 million acres of the Chukchi Sea would be made available. Alternative II is the No Action or No Lease Alternative. Alternative III (Corridor I Deferral) is the proposed action minus a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the sale area and would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres for lease. Under Alternative IV (Corridor II Deferral), which is the preferred alternative, 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area would be excluded. Selection of Alternative IV would be equivalent to affirming Sale 193 as held. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production in the United States, increasing the nation's energy independence and thereby reducing its dependence on foreign sources and improving the stability of the country's foreign relations with foreign sources of oil. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy and contribute to the state government's revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Drilling muds would be generated during for two to four months during the exploration phase and for three to five years during the development phase. Produced waters ranging would be generated as oil and gas is pumped from the formation in the production and operation phase. Major spills of at least 1,000 barrels could occur over the life of lease development activities. Larger spills, although unlikely, would do significantly more damage to fisheries, other marine, and coastal resources, including estuaries. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project; pipelines would be cleaned, plugged, and abandoned in place. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur during construction. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities and oil spills would affect marine mammals, particularly bowhead whales, and platforms and environmental damage could impact federally protected bird species. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100408, 295 pages, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves 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 - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance 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/873129343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&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.&rft.title=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHUKCHI SEA PLANNING AREA OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE 193 IN THE CHUKCHI SEA, ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. AN - 808451512; 14679 AB - PURPOSE: The sale of oil and gas lease blocks in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is reconsidered. The affected area includes the Chukchi Sea marine environment, the associated coastal plain, and the North Slope Borough of Alaska. The Chukchi OCS is viewed as one of the most petroleum-rich offshore provinces in the country, with geologic plays extending offshore from some of the largest oil and gas fields on Alaska's North Slope. The current federal assessment by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) indicates that the mean recoverable oil resource amounts to 12 billion barrels, with a five percent chance of 29 billion barrels. After the release of the Chukchi Sea Planning Area final EIS in June 2007, the lease sale, designated Sale 193, was held in February 2008. It involved 6,156 whole and partial blocks within the planning area, covering 34 million acres. BOEM accepted high bids of approximately $2.7 billion and issued 487 leases for approximately 2.8 million acres. The sale area excluded a 15- to 50-mile-wide corridor along the coast, known as the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale area vary from 95 feet to 262 feet, with a small portion of the northeast corner deep-ending to 9,800 feet in the Barrow Canyon. A January, 2008 lawsuit challenged the sale and the United States District Court for the District of Alaska remanded Sale 193 for further analysis of the environmental impact of natural gas development and of missing or incomplete information within the final EIS. This draft supplemental EIS carries forward the alternatives and augments the analysis of the final EIS. The scenario for environmental analysis involves the discovery, development, and production of the first offshore oil and gas field in the Chukchi Sea. Under the proposed action ( Alternative I), all 34 million acres of the Chukchi Sea would be made available. Alternative II is the No Action or No Lease Alternative. Alternative III (Corridor I Deferral) is the proposed action minus a corridor extending 60 miles offshore along the coastward edge of the sale area and would offer 1,765 whole or partial blocks comprising 9.1 million acres for lease. Under Alternative IV (Corridor II Deferral), which is the preferred alternative, 795 whole or partial blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area would be excluded. Selection of Alternative IV would be equivalent to affirming Sale 193 as held. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the Chuckchi leases would provide enormous supplies of oil for energy production in the United States, increasing the nation's energy independence and thereby reducing its dependence on foreign sources and improving the stability of the country's foreign relations with foreign sources of oil. Development of the Chuckchi energy resource would employ thousands of workers and otherwise boost the regional and state economy and contribute to the state government's revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Discharges of muds, cuttings, and produced waters would impact water quality near platforms and wells. Drilling muds would be generated during for two to four months during the exploration phase and for three to five years during the development phase. Produced waters ranging would be generated as oil and gas is pumped from the formation in the production and operation phase. Major spills of at least 1,000 barrels could occur over the life of lease development activities. Larger spills, although unlikely, would do significantly more damage to fisheries, other marine, and coastal resources, including estuaries. Construction would destroy benthos temporarily and disturb benthic habitat through the life of the project; pipelines would be cleaned, plugged, and abandoned in place. Noise-related disturbance of fish and direct loss or degradation of fish habitat would occur during construction. Seismic surveys, ship movements, drilling, platform and pipeline construction, and other activities and oil spills would affect marine mammals, particularly bowhead whales, and platforms and environmental damage could impact federally protected bird species. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371), Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 06-0625D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 07-0199F, Volume 31, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100408, 295 pages, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEMRE 2010-034 KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves 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 - Indian Reservations KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance 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/808451512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&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.&rft.title=CHUKCHI+SEA+PLANNING+AREA+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE+193+IN+THE+CHUKCHI+SEA%2C+ALASKA+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223932; 14672-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a smaller-scale casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the Tribal government and establish self-sufficiency. Funds for a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare services would improve the quality of life of Tribal members. Operation of the complex proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils on the project site require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns, causing erosion or siltation during construction and resulting in short-term violation of water quality standards. Construction activities would generate fugitive dust and emissions generated by vehicular trips would exceed significance thresholds. Disturbance of plant communities would remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100401, Draft EIS--412 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-49 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAMPTON NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HAMPTON NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 853676429; 14674-100403_0001 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 approximately 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 parks current plan, which was published in 1983, and would describe the resource conditions, necessary 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 during more than 200 years of Americas development as a nation, from before the Revolutionary War until after World War II. The present site encompasses the family mansion, with its formal gardens and grounds, support buildings, and the original lower farm house, dairy, slave and servants quarters and other remains of the home farm, which supported the needs of the mansion and the workers in its immediate area. 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), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. For both Alternatives 2 and 3, the essential landscape features, integrity and character would be retained, and the time period selected for physical representation would be the latter part of the 19th century. The differences between Alternative 2 and 3 relate to intensity of landscape and historic structure rehabilitation and restoration. Alternative 2 would propose the reintroduction of a number of specific features, recreating as closely as possible the historic appearance of the estate. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to evoke the character of the landscape during the period of significance, but acknowledge compromises in treatment and the depth of rehabilitation in order to insure that operational and maintenance costs remain sustainable. Funding and staffing decisions are based on available appropriations and staffing priorities of the Northeast Region of the NPS and full implementation of a selected plan could be many years in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation 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: Construction of a new administration and visitor services building under Alternative 2 would have a long-term, moderate negative impact on the cultural landscape. The construction of a second potentially even larger modern building, in addition to the collections facility, would create an even greater visual intrusion into the cultural landscape of the historic service area and the mansion itself. Unavoidable negative effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 would include loss of historic integrity arising from rehabilitation efforts to solve existing safety and access problems into historic structures and along roads or during the process of stabilization or rehabilitation in historic structures or in the cultural landscape. 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: 100403, 136 pages, October 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-55 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/853676429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-06&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANZANITA BAND OF KUMEYAAY INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO FACILITY / HOTEL PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 808453270; 14672 AB - PURPOSE: A 60.8-acre fee-to-trust land acquisition and the subsequent development of a destination resort and casino in the City of Calexico, Imperial County, California are proposed. The Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Indians (Tribe) submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to take the land into federal trust status and the proposed action includes the potential approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between the Tribe and an unknown party. A lack of economic development opportunities exists for the Tribe primarily due to a lack of funds for project development and the lack of developable land available on the reservation. The majority of the Tribe is within the low to moderate household income level and unemployed. Key issues identified during scoping include socioeconomic effects on the local community, impacts to other tribes in the region, air quality, traffic, and potential impacts of an off-reservation casino location on the Tribe and the urban community of Calexico. Two development alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative C) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, the proposed complex would include a 200-room hotel, gaming area, restaurants and lounges, retail, meeting and assembly spaces, entertainment and recreation spaces, and 6,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Alternative B would involve development of a smaller-scale casino on the same project site, but with a smaller gaming area footprint. Domestic water for the project, estimated at 91,200 gallons per day, would be provided by the City of Calexico. The average daily wastewater flow is estimated at 37,365 gallons per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing an augmented revenue source that could be used to strengthen the Tribal government and establish self-sufficiency. Funds for a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare services would improve the quality of life of Tribal members. Operation of the complex proposed under Alternative A would provide employment opportunities for 2,400 persons from the Tribal community, Calexico, and Imperial County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismicity and the presence of expandable and collapsible soils on the project site require geotechnical evaluation and mitigation. Grading requirements have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns, causing erosion or siltation during construction and resulting in short-term violation of water quality standards. Construction activities would generate fugitive dust and emissions generated by vehicular trips would exceed significance thresholds. Disturbance of plant communities would remove habitat for sensitive species such as the yellow warbler and the western burrowing owl. The proposed casino has the potential to increase problem and pathological gambling, thereby encouraging illegal acts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100401, Draft EIS--412 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--CD-ROM, October 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-49 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/808453270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MANZANITA+BAND+OF+KUMEYAAY+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO+FACILITY+%2F+HOTEL+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAMPTON NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 808451508; 14674 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 approximately 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 parks current plan, which was published in 1983, and would describe the resource conditions, necessary 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 during more than 200 years of Americas development as a nation, from before the Revolutionary War until after World War II. The present site encompasses the family mansion, with its formal gardens and grounds, support buildings, and the original lower farm house, dairy, slave and servants quarters and other remains of the home farm, which supported the needs of the mansion and the workers in its immediate area. 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), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft EIS. For both Alternatives 2 and 3, the essential landscape features, integrity and character would be retained, and the time period selected for physical representation would be the latter part of the 19th century. The differences between Alternative 2 and 3 relate to intensity of landscape and historic structure rehabilitation and restoration. Alternative 2 would propose the reintroduction of a number of specific features, recreating as closely as possible the historic appearance of the estate. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to evoke the character of the landscape during the period of significance, but acknowledge compromises in treatment and the depth of rehabilitation in order to insure that operational and maintenance costs remain sustainable. Funding and staffing decisions are based on available appropriations and staffing priorities of the Northeast Region of the NPS and full implementation of a selected plan could be many years in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation 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: Construction of a new administration and visitor services building under Alternative 2 would have a long-term, moderate negative impact on the cultural landscape. The construction of a second potentially even larger modern building, in addition to the collections facility, would create an even greater visual intrusion into the cultural landscape of the historic service area and the mansion itself. Unavoidable negative effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 would include loss of historic integrity arising from rehabilitation efforts to solve existing safety and access problems into historic structures and along roads or during the process of stabilization or rehabilitation in historic structures or in the cultural landscape. 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: 100403, 136 pages, October 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 10-55 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/808451508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-06&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 873132870; 14671-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service and general aviation and averages 90 takeoffs or landings per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. Over the past decade, federal grants funded almost $28 million in projects at Jackson Hole Airport. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033. When the agreement expired, the airport would be closed and the site would be restored to natural conditions. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. The commitment to reduce airport impacts would be strengthened. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without federal grants, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience at Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0116D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100400, Final EIS (Volume 1)--417 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--315 pages, October 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: FES 10-52 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 873132854; 14671-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service and general aviation and averages 90 takeoffs or landings per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. Over the past decade, federal grants funded almost $28 million in projects at Jackson Hole Airport. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033. When the agreement expired, the airport would be closed and the site would be restored to natural conditions. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. The commitment to reduce airport impacts would be strengthened. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without federal grants, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience at Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0116D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100400, Final EIS (Volume 1)--417 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--315 pages, October 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: FES 10-52 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 873130065; 14671-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service and general aviation and averages 90 takeoffs or landings per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. Over the past decade, federal grants funded almost $28 million in projects at Jackson Hole Airport. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033. When the agreement expired, the airport would be closed and the site would be restored to natural conditions. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. The commitment to reduce airport impacts would be strengthened. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without federal grants, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience at Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0116D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100400, Final EIS (Volume 1)--417 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--315 pages, October 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: FES 10-52 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 873130046; 14671-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service and general aviation and averages 90 takeoffs or landings per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. Over the past decade, federal grants funded almost $28 million in projects at Jackson Hole Airport. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033. When the agreement expired, the airport would be closed and the site would be restored to natural conditions. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. The commitment to reduce airport impacts would be strengthened. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without federal grants, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience at Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0116D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100400, Final EIS (Volume 1)--417 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--315 pages, October 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: FES 10-52 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - JACKSON HOLE AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT EXTENSION, GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK, WYOMING. AN - 873129385; 14671-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the use agreement for the operation of Jackson Hole Airport, Grand Teton National Park, Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. Jackson Hole Airport supports both scheduled passenger service and general aviation and averages 90 takeoffs or landings per day. It accounts for more than 30 percent of all aviation-related jobs in Wyoming, 40 percent of total annual expenditures of the state's general aviation visitors, and almost 75 percent of scheduled passenger enplanements. The 533-acre airport is entirely within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park and is operated under a 1983 use agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior for a term of 30 years, with two 10-year renewal options, both of which have been exercised. Operation of the airport is authorized until April 27, 2033, but Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding regulations require an airport to own its own land, or have more than 20 years remaining on its lease or use agreement, to remain eligible for airport improvement program funding. Thus, FAA grant eligibility would be foreclosed after 2013 without an extension of the use agreement. Over the past decade, federal grants funded almost $28 million in projects at Jackson Hole Airport. Two alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the airport would lose its entitlement to federal funding for acquisition, repair, and replacement of infrastructure on April 27, 2033. The airport would continue general aviation operations under the existing use agreement until 2033. When the agreement expired, the airport would be closed and the site would be restored to natural conditions. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, an administrative action would add two 10-year terms to the existing use agreement so that it would expire on April 27, 2053. The commitment to reduce airport impacts would be strengthened. No other changes in the use agreement would be made and no construction or development of new facilities would be involved. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension of the use agreement would maintain the Jackson Hole Airport Board's ability to compete for FAA grant funding beyond the year 2013 for planned capital improvements which include expansion of the terminal building, a safety planning study, a glycol recapture system, runway rehabilitation, and sound monitoring system upgrades. Passenger service and general aviation operations would continue generating long-term, indirect socioeconomic benefits to the town of Jackson and Teton County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Without federal grants, the board would have difficulty maintaining the airport's federal certification to support passenger aviation and providers would likely terminate service. Moderate adverse effects on safety would result from the inability of the airport to install upgraded navigational aids, purchase safety equipment, and maintain rescue training. Long-term, indirect, adverse impacts for Jackson and Teton County include the loss of at least 90 percent of the airport's operating revenue, loss of jobs, and the end of locally available scheduled passenger service. Closure of Jackson Hole Airport and the potential expansion of the Idaho Falls Regional Airport to meet demand for air service to the region would have major effects on highway capacity in Wyoming and Idaho and entail indirect capital costs of $336 million. The continued intrusion of aircraft noise on the natural soundscape and the quality of the visitor experience at Grand Teton National Park would be an unavoidable adverse impact of either alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0116D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100400, Final EIS (Volume 1)--417 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--315 pages, October 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: FES 10-52 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Grand Teton National Park KW - Wyoming KW - Department of the Interior Airports Act of 1950, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=JACKSON+HOLE+AIRPORT+USE+AGREEMENT+EXTENSION%2C+GRAND+TETON+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Moose, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133758; 14663-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout due to the construction of Nimbus Dam. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, is susceptible to damage from high flows, and is requiring annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology and river flows, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. Two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the construction of a concrete flume fish passageway from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and removal of the diversion weir. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall, based on existing fishing regulations. Under Alternative 1C, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Six 15-foot-wide bypass bays on the south side of the river would allow access to maintain the structure which would be designed to withstand flood flows of 160,00 cubic feet per second with minimal damage. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $6.5 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addressing the existing problems with the weir would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat blocked by the Nimbus Dam. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction of all action alternatives, there would be an increased potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). JF - EPA number: 100392, 438 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-53 KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133754; 14663-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout due to the construction of Nimbus Dam. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, is susceptible to damage from high flows, and is requiring annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology and river flows, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. Two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the construction of a concrete flume fish passageway from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and removal of the diversion weir. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall, based on existing fishing regulations. Under Alternative 1C, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Six 15-foot-wide bypass bays on the south side of the river would allow access to maintain the structure which would be designed to withstand flood flows of 160,00 cubic feet per second with minimal damage. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $6.5 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addressing the existing problems with the weir would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat blocked by the Nimbus Dam. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction of all action alternatives, there would be an increased potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). JF - EPA number: 100392, 438 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-53 KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIMBUS HATCHERY FISH PASSAGE PROJECT, RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 772274027; 14663 AB - PURPOSE: The removal or replacement of a fish diversion weir at the Nimbus Fish Hatchery in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California is proposed. The Bureau of Reclamation built the hatchery along the lower American River in 1955 to mitigate for the loss of spawning habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead trout due to the construction of Nimbus Dam. The existing fish weir, which helps adult salmon enter the fish ladder, is aging, is susceptible to damage from high flows, and is requiring annual flow reductions for maintenance. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to habitat and fisheries protection, recreation, safety and public access, hydrology and river flows, and potential contamination by the invasive New Zealand mudsnail. Two approaches to address the problems associated with the existing diversion weir and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve the construction of a concrete flume fish passageway from the hatchery to the stilling basin downstream of Nimbus Dam and removal of the diversion weir. Nimbus Dam would function as the upstream barrier to fish migration. A cofferdam or temporary watertight structure would be used to dewater the site for constructing the entrance to the fish channel. Two implementation options for Alternative 1 are under consideration. Under Alternative 1A, fishing closures would apply all year within a radius of 250 feet of the modified fish passageway entrance and the existing hatchery fishway outfall, based on existing fishing regulations. Under Alternative 1C, a new regulation would be implemented to close fishing year-round between Nimbus Dam and the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing. Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the diversion weir with a 750-foot-long, 52-foot-wide concrete weir that would span the width of the river just upstream of the existing ladder entrance. Six 15-foot-wide bypass bays on the south side of the river would allow access to maintain the structure which would be designed to withstand flood flows of 160,00 cubic feet per second with minimal damage. Construction costs for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are estimated at $6.5 million and $12 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addressing the existing problems with the weir would help to maintain a reliable system for collecting adult fish and to mitigate the effects of lost spawning habitat blocked by the Nimbus Dam. Removal of the aging weir would eliminate the need for flow reductions and thus increase operational flexibility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: During construction of all action alternatives, there would be an increased potential for water quality degradation due to disturbance of river sediments and silt runoff from disturbed areas. Significant noise impacts would occur from construction equipment operating in the riverbed during weir demolition. Sportfishing opportunities in the area would be reduced under Alternative 1C. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624). JF - EPA number: 100392, 438 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-53 KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - American River KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/772274027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NIMBUS+HATCHERY+FISH+PASSAGE+PROJECT%2C+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 18 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133752; 14659-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 17 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133749; 14659-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 15 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133747; 14659-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 14 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133744; 14659-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 7 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133740; 14659-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 6 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133737; 14659-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 5 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133272; 14659-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 4 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133267; 14659-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 3 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133263; 14659-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 2 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873133256; 14659-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873133256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 23 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132994; 14659-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 19 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132991; 14659-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 13 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132988; 14659-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 11 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132981; 14659-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 10 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132973; 14659-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 9 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132969; 14659-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 8 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132963; 14659-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 22 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132102; 14659-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 21 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132093; 14659-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 20 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132087; 14659-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 16 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132080; 14659-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 12 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873132075; 14659-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873132075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873131839; 14659-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873131839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 24 of 24] T2 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873129924; 14659-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/873129924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST BUTTE WIND POWER PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY, DESCHUTES, AND CROOK COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 772276145; 14659 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a right-of-way (ROW) across federally administered lands for the construction and operation of access roads and a transmission line associated with the West Butte Wind Power Project in Crook and Deschutes counties, Oregon is proposed. The project area is located about 32 miles east of Bend and 30 miles south of Prineville, north of State Highway 20. The action under consideration is the authorization of a 100-foot-wide, 3.9-mile-long ROW by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the construction and operation of project facilities which would be limited to a corridor approximately 30 feet wide. The ROW would permanently accommodate a 3.9-mile long, 24-foot-wide access road and a 115-kilovolt (kV) electrical transmission line mounted on single wooden poles, 50 to 53 feet high, spaced at 300-foot intervals. The transmission line would be located six feet from the edge of the access road. A 14.4 kV electrical utility line and a fiber optic communication line would also be located on the transmission line poles. The transmission line would be used to transmit the energy from the project substation to the point of interconnection at an existing Bonneville Power Authority transmission line. The construction and operation of the West Butte Wind Power Project, including facilities that are located on privately owned lands, are connected, non-federal actions and are considered indirect effects of the BLM action to grant a ROW. Facilities associated with the development of the connected actions on private land in Crook and Deschutes counties include 34 to 52 wind turbines, underground and overhead electric collector lines, substation, transmission line, switchyard, turbine access roads, operation and maintenance facility, and up to three meteorological towers. This final EIS considers three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 3). Under Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, a ROW for construction and operation of an access road and transmission line would be granted, and the connected action of West Butte Wind constructing and operating a wind farm on privately held lands would go forward. Alternative 2 would involve a Northern Access Road to access the project facilities making up the connected action, rather than an access road through BLM-managed lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization of the utility ROW application would fulfill the multiple use mandate for management of federal lands, including energy generation and transmission facilities. A completed West Butte Wind Power Project would provide up to a 104 megawatts of generating capacity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 224 acres of soil and 82 acres would be permanently impacted by installation of project facilities. Temporary and permanent loss of vegetation would occur. Impacts to existing drainages and downstream watercourses could include increased runoff, sedimentation, and alterations to peak flow rates. The access road for Alternative 1 would cross 10 drainages; the access road for Alternative 2 would cross 17 drainages. Habitat fragmentation could lead to changes in bird behaviors that are dependent on specific vegetative types. Other impacts would include those to greater sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, northern sagebrush lizard, and green-tinged paintbrush. Construction and operation of the connected action, especially the wind turbines, would result in disruption to the scenic quality of the existing landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 10-0029D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100388, 292 pages, September 24, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-49 KW - Birds KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/772276145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=WEST+BUTTE+WIND+POWER+PROJECT+RIGHT+OF+WAY%2C+DESCHUTES%2C+AND+CROOK+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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 9 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873133732; 14657-6_0009 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 8 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873133730; 14657-6_0008 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 7 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873133727; 14657-6_0007 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 6 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873133724; 14657-6_0006 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 15 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873133234; 14657-6_0015 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 14 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873133230; 14657-6_0014 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 5 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132960; 14657-6_0005 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 4 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132956; 14657-6_0004 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 3 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132951; 14657-6_0003 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 2 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132944; 14657-6_0002 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 1 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132941; 14657-6_0001 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 13 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132065; 14657-6_0013 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 12 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132059; 14657-6_0012 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 11 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132054; 14657-6_0011 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 10 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132051; 14657-6_0010 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 21 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131804; 14657-6_0021 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 20 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131801; 14657-6_0020 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 19 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131799; 14657-6_0019 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 18 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131793; 14657-6_0018 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 17 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131789; 14657-6_0017 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 16 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131785; 14657-6_0016 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 24 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131634; 14657-6_0024 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 23 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131596; 14657-6_0023 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 22 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131583; 14657-6_0022 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 26 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873128276; 14657-6_0026 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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. [Part 25 of 26] T2 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873128266; 14657-6_0025 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 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 - 772273938; 14657 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. Gasco Energy, Inc. operates the majority of the mineral rights underlying public and private lands in the Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area which encompasses 206,826 acres located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 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. Targeted geologic strata lie in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed alternative (Alternative A), which is also the preferred alternative, 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. Based on an average drilling rate of 100 wells per year and assuming that the drilling program would begin in 2010, it is anticipated that the 1,491 proposed wells would be drilled by approximately 2026. The total number of wells would depend largely on geology, economic factors, and lease restrictions. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Thus, the total life of the project would be 45 years. Approximately 325 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas would be transported via 431 miles of new pipeline and related facilities to either intrastate or interstate pipelines. Depending on site-specific conditions, pipelines and collector lines would either be laid on the ground surface, typically next to a road, or trenched and buried. If dry, the wells would be plugged and abandoned. The construction of new compressor facilities is not proposed, but gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a total of approximately 21,000 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. Water for drilling would come from a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, recycled drilling water, and other available sources. Drilling under Alternative A is expected to produce about 30,300 barrels of water per day at peak development. This water would be disposed of in an evaporative facility with 30 basins on 214 acres. Other alternatives analyzed include a reduced development alternative (1,114 natural gas wells), a full development alternative (a maximum of 1,887 natural gas wells), and a directional drilling alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop their leases and efficiently produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas by expanding the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs oil and gas field infrastructure. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Development would create approximately 227 jobs and generate $2 million in revenue to the Uinta Basin counties throughout the life of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would disturb 7,584 acres and convert 5,880 acres of land to well pads, evaporation facilities, roads, and pipelines. However, no acres of surface disturbance would occur below the rim of Nine Mile Canyon. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Impacts to livestock grazing would include potential reduction in forage by 743 total animal unit months. Within the extensive recreation management area that provides opportunities for primitive recreation, 729 acres would be directly impacted and 15,173 acres would be within 0.5 mile of direct disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100386, Final EIS (Volume 1)--674 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--644 pages and maps, CD-ROM, September 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-33 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 - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/772273938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-20&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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WARNER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN, LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK, MINERAL, PLUMAS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 762465742; 14653 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive site plan to address natural and cultural resource conflicts and to improve circulation and parking in Warner Valley, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Plumas County, California is proposed. Lassen Volcanic National Park is a 106,372-acre park located in Plumas, Lassen, Shasta, and Tehama counties. It is a unique example of a dynamic geologic landscape and it preserves examples of several types of volcanoes and contains a network of geothermal resources including boiling springs, mudpots, and fumaroles. In 1972 Congress designated 75 percent of the park as the Lassen Volcanic Wilderness. Warner Valley is located in the south central part of the park and is the location of the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, a concession-operated lodging facility which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The center of the valley features Drakesbad Meadow, one of the largest known fens in the western United States, and a campground and several trails, including the Pacific Crest Trail. The Warner Valley includes Dream Lake Dam, which impounds a 2.7-acre lake that is up to 5-feet deep and is a contributing resource of the historic district. Drakesbad Guest Ranch guests use the lake for fishing, bird watching and canoeing. Lack of maintenance at the dam and the impact of beaver activity has left the dam in a weakened state with a risk of failure. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would: 1) restore wetlands throughout Warner Valley and permanently fill ditches with appropriate soil in Drakesbad Meadow; 2) create a concession housing and service center outside of the Drakesbad Guest Ranch Historic District composed of tent cabins surrounding a single-story bathhouse building; and 3) remove Dream Lake Dam and allow the area to revert to a riparian wetland complex. Alternative 3 differs in that the proposed housing would consist of a two-story dormitory with bathrooms, and Dream Lake Dam would be re-constructed rather than removed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed plan would improve visitor experience through attention to educational, interpretive, and recreational opportunities in the park and protection of wilderness values. Proposed actions would protect and restore the hydrologic and biologic functions of the damaged fen wetland in the Warner Valley, improve trail connections and campgrounds, and protect public health and public and employee safety by addressing the structural problems of Dream Lake Dam. The removal of noncontributing features would preserve the historic viewshed of Drakesbad Guest Ranch and the view to Mount Harkness. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities under Alternative 2 would impact vegetation and wildlife. Removal of Dream Lake Dam and the lake would have an adverse impact on the cultural landscape. Archaeological resources could be damaged from new construction, demolition, and rehabilitation of existing facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0296D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100382, 358 pages and maps, September 17, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Geologic Sites KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Volcanoes KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - California KW - Lassen Volcanic National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762465742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WARNER+VALLEY+COMPREHENSIVE+SITE+PLAN%2C+LASSEN+VOLCANIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MINERAL%2C+PLUMAS+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WARNER+VALLEY+COMPREHENSIVE+SITE+PLAN%2C+LASSEN+VOLCANIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MINERAL%2C+PLUMAS+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, Mineral, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONCOW HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT, FEATHER RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, TOWNS OF PARADISE, MAGALIA, CONCOW, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CONCOW HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT, FEATHER RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, TOWNS OF PARADISE, MAGALIA, CONCOW, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132910; 14648-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Hazardous fuels reduction and forest health treatments to establish and maintain defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) within the Concow Planning Area, Butte County, California are proposed. The Concow Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project includes 1,478 acres on the Feather River Ranger District of The Plumas National Forest and 32 acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management in locations around the towns of Paradise, Magalia, Concow, and Yankee Hill. In June, 2008 lightning strikes ignited multiple fires in the area. Due to local topography, weather, and forest fuels conditions, these separate fires expanded until they joined, scorching forestlands, and consuming homes in the central and eastern portions of the Concow Planning Area. The proposed project design conforms to the 1998 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) and would add to the HFQLG Pilot Project's partially completed landscape DFPZ network. The proposed DFPZs would establish defensible space on strips of land up to half a mile in width, designed to link to natural fire barriers such as mountain ridges and rocky areas and, where feasible, alongside residential properties, evacuation routes, and primary fire suppression access routes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cumulative effects to watershed resources, impacts to snag habitat and species that are dependent on snags for nesting and roosting, and concerns regarding forest management for economic recovery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred and proposed action, a variety of integrated hazardous fuels reduction and forest health methods would be applied over a maximum of 1,510 acres in the wildland urban-interface (WUI) in three spatially overlapping treatment phases. Followup DFPZ maintenance treatments would occur over a 10 year period. Commercial forest by-products up to two million board feet of timber volume and 3,750 tons of biomass would be generated. Forest health treatments would allow for the removal of conifer trees ranging from nine inches to 29.9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Alternative C would establish DFPZs on a maximum 1,363 acres through solely non-commercial funding sources in a single treatment entry. Small live trees less than nine inches dbh in the unburned areas and small dead trees less than 11 inches dbh in the burned areas would be felled and surface fuels treated on location. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of DFPZ conditions within the WUI would reduce risks to rural communities from wildfires and provide safer and more effective locations for firefighters to initiate fire suppression. Up to 30 forestry-related jobs would be created in Butte County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would affect yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, and pallid bat, but would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of species viability. Ground disturbing activities could increase the risk of adverse cumulative watershed resource effects and would cause a slight increase in risk of new infestation by non-native plant species. LEGAL MANDATES: Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. JF - EPA number: 100376, Draft EIS--461 pages, Appendices--342 pages, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Plumas National Forest KW - Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, Compliance KW - Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONCOW+HAZARDOUS+FUELS+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+FEATHER+RIVER+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+PLUMAS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+TOWNS+OF+PARADISE%2C+MAGALIA%2C+CONCOW%2C+BUTTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONCOW+HAZARDOUS+FUELS+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+FEATHER+RIVER+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+PLUMAS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+TOWNS+OF+PARADISE%2C+MAGALIA%2C+CONCOW%2C+BUTTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Oroville, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONCOW HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT, FEATHER RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, TOWNS OF PARADISE, MAGALIA, CONCOW, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CONCOW HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT, FEATHER RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, TOWNS OF PARADISE, MAGALIA, CONCOW, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132893; 14648-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Hazardous fuels reduction and forest health treatments to establish and maintain defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) within the Concow Planning Area, Butte County, California are proposed. The Concow Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project includes 1,478 acres on the Feather River Ranger District of The Plumas National Forest and 32 acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management in locations around the towns of Paradise, Magalia, Concow, and Yankee Hill. In June, 2008 lightning strikes ignited multiple fires in the area. Due to local topography, weather, and forest fuels conditions, these separate fires expanded until they joined, scorching forestlands, and consuming homes in the central and eastern portions of the Concow Planning Area. The proposed project design conforms to the 1998 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) and would add to the HFQLG Pilot Project's partially completed landscape DFPZ network. The proposed DFPZs would establish defensible space on strips of land up to half a mile in width, designed to link to natural fire barriers such as mountain ridges and rocky areas and, where feasible, alongside residential properties, evacuation routes, and primary fire suppression access routes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cumulative effects to watershed resources, impacts to snag habitat and species that are dependent on snags for nesting and roosting, and concerns regarding forest management for economic recovery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred and proposed action, a variety of integrated hazardous fuels reduction and forest health methods would be applied over a maximum of 1,510 acres in the wildland urban-interface (WUI) in three spatially overlapping treatment phases. Followup DFPZ maintenance treatments would occur over a 10 year period. Commercial forest by-products up to two million board feet of timber volume and 3,750 tons of biomass would be generated. Forest health treatments would allow for the removal of conifer trees ranging from nine inches to 29.9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Alternative C would establish DFPZs on a maximum 1,363 acres through solely non-commercial funding sources in a single treatment entry. Small live trees less than nine inches dbh in the unburned areas and small dead trees less than 11 inches dbh in the burned areas would be felled and surface fuels treated on location. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of DFPZ conditions within the WUI would reduce risks to rural communities from wildfires and provide safer and more effective locations for firefighters to initiate fire suppression. Up to 30 forestry-related jobs would be created in Butte County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would affect yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, and pallid bat, but would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of species viability. Ground disturbing activities could increase the risk of adverse cumulative watershed resource effects and would cause a slight increase in risk of new infestation by non-native plant species. LEGAL MANDATES: Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. JF - EPA number: 100376, Draft EIS--461 pages, Appendices--342 pages, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Plumas National Forest KW - Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, Compliance KW - Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONCOW+HAZARDOUS+FUELS+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+FEATHER+RIVER+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+PLUMAS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+TOWNS+OF+PARADISE%2C+MAGALIA%2C+CONCOW%2C+BUTTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONCOW+HAZARDOUS+FUELS+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+FEATHER+RIVER+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+PLUMAS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+TOWNS+OF+PARADISE%2C+MAGALIA%2C+CONCOW%2C+BUTTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Oroville, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONCOW HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT, FEATHER RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST, TOWNS OF PARADISE, MAGALIA, CONCOW, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 762465731; 14648 AB - PURPOSE: Hazardous fuels reduction and forest health treatments to establish and maintain defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs) within the Concow Planning Area, Butte County, California are proposed. The Concow Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project includes 1,478 acres on the Feather River Ranger District of The Plumas National Forest and 32 acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management in locations around the towns of Paradise, Magalia, Concow, and Yankee Hill. In June, 2008 lightning strikes ignited multiple fires in the area. Due to local topography, weather, and forest fuels conditions, these separate fires expanded until they joined, scorching forestlands, and consuming homes in the central and eastern portions of the Concow Planning Area. The proposed project design conforms to the 1998 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) and would add to the HFQLG Pilot Project's partially completed landscape DFPZ network. The proposed DFPZs would establish defensible space on strips of land up to half a mile in width, designed to link to natural fire barriers such as mountain ridges and rocky areas and, where feasible, alongside residential properties, evacuation routes, and primary fire suppression access routes. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to cumulative effects to watershed resources, impacts to snag habitat and species that are dependent on snags for nesting and roosting, and concerns regarding forest management for economic recovery. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, which is the preferred and proposed action, a variety of integrated hazardous fuels reduction and forest health methods would be applied over a maximum of 1,510 acres in the wildland urban-interface (WUI) in three spatially overlapping treatment phases. Followup DFPZ maintenance treatments would occur over a 10 year period. Commercial forest by-products up to two million board feet of timber volume and 3,750 tons of biomass would be generated. Forest health treatments would allow for the removal of conifer trees ranging from nine inches to 29.9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Alternative C would establish DFPZs on a maximum 1,363 acres through solely non-commercial funding sources in a single treatment entry. Small live trees less than nine inches dbh in the unburned areas and small dead trees less than 11 inches dbh in the burned areas would be felled and surface fuels treated on location. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The establishment of DFPZ conditions within the WUI would reduce risks to rural communities from wildfires and provide safer and more effective locations for firefighters to initiate fire suppression. Up to 30 forestry-related jobs would be created in Butte County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would affect yellow-legged frog, northwestern pond turtle, and pallid bat, but would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of species viability. Ground disturbing activities could increase the risk of adverse cumulative watershed resource effects and would cause a slight increase in risk of new infestation by non-native plant species. LEGAL MANDATES: Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) and Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. JF - EPA number: 100376, Draft EIS--461 pages, Appendices--342 pages, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Plumas National Forest KW - Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, Compliance KW - Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762465731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONCOW+HAZARDOUS+FUELS+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+FEATHER+RIVER+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+PLUMAS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+TOWNS+OF+PARADISE%2C+MAGALIA%2C+CONCOW%2C+BUTTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CONCOW+HAZARDOUS+FUELS+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+FEATHER+RIVER+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+PLUMAS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+TOWNS+OF+PARADISE%2C+MAGALIA%2C+CONCOW%2C+BUTTE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Oroville, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCORE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCORE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 873132011; 14646-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCore, Valley, and Phillips counties, Montana is proposed. Originally established in 1936 as the Fort Peck Game Range, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States and encompasses nearly 1.1 million acres in north-central Montana. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1969 and lies within the boundary of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; these two Refuge System units are managed cohesively as one refuge. Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife includes 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. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness, and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling 155,288 acres. More than 250,000 visitors participate in recreational activities every year. This draft CCP and EIS evaluates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public use. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. The habitat regime would be 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. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, and limited interpretation and environmental education programs. About 670 miles of road would remain open. The Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the UL Bend Wilderness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. 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 that would minimize damaging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversifying public and economic opportunities. Under the proposed action (Alternative D), natural, dynamic, ecological processes would be balanced 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 experiences and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to ecological processes. About 23 miles of road would be closed. In addition to the wilderness elements in Alternative A, the Service would recommend expanding six of the proposed wilderness units by a total of 18,559 acres in the Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, Alkali Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Hell Creek, and Sheep Creek units, and eliminating three units for a reduction of 26,744 acres in the East Beauchamp Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, and East Hell Creek units. 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 the refuges 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. Refuge management changes would affect individual livestock permittees with impacts ranging from minor under alternatives A and C, to potentially major under alternatives B and D. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12996 and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). JF - EPA number: 100374, 464 pages and maps, September 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 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/873132011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-08&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+MCCORE%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+MCCORE%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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCORE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 762465738; 14646 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCore, Valley, and Phillips counties, Montana is proposed. Originally established in 1936 as the Fort Peck Game Range, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States and encompasses nearly 1.1 million acres in north-central Montana. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1969 and lies within the boundary of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; these two Refuge System units are managed cohesively as one refuge. Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife includes 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. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness, and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling 155,288 acres. More than 250,000 visitors participate in recreational activities every year. This draft CCP and EIS evaluates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public use. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. The habitat regime would be 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. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, and limited interpretation and environmental education programs. About 670 miles of road would remain open. The Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the UL Bend Wilderness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. 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 that would minimize damaging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversifying public and economic opportunities. Under the proposed action (Alternative D), natural, dynamic, ecological processes would be balanced 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 experiences and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to ecological processes. About 23 miles of road would be closed. In addition to the wilderness elements in Alternative A, the Service would recommend expanding six of the proposed wilderness units by a total of 18,559 acres in the Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, Alkali Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Hell Creek, and Sheep Creek units, and eliminating three units for a reduction of 26,744 acres in the East Beauchamp Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, and East Hell Creek units. 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 the refuges 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. Refuge management changes would affect individual livestock permittees with impacts ranging from minor under alternatives A and C, to potentially major under alternatives B and D. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12996 and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). JF - EPA number: 100374, 464 pages and maps, September 8, 2010 PY - 2010 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/762465738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-08&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+MCCORE%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+MCCORE%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 - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876248326; 14633-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multi-modal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876245782; 14633-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multi-modal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876245770; 14633-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multi-modal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 759301375; 14633 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative consists of near-term and general long-term improvements for the Corridor to meet the travel demand for 2050 and address immediate needs. To address future uncertainties, trigger points and stakeholder involvement would be used to reassess needs and to determine the most appropriate transportation improvements to meet future demand. The preferred alternative would implement a multi-modal solution and include non-infrastructure related components, an advanced guideway system, and highway improvements. A specific advanced guideway system technology would be determined in subsequent study or a Tier 2 process and would be deployed to provide transit service from the Eagle County Regional Airport to C-470, a distance of 118 miles. It would be a fully elevated transit system on two tracks aligned to the north, south, or in the median of I-70. The system would connect to the regional transportation district network in Jefferson County and local and regional transit services at most of the 15 proposed transit stations along the route. The advanced guideway system would require new tunnel bores at both the Eisenhower-Johnson Memorial Tunnels and the Twin Tunnels. The six-lane highway widening improvements which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile per hour (mph) and 65 mph design options. The 55 mph option would use the existing I-70 alignment. The 65 mph design would require additional tunnels at Dowd Canyon, Hidden Valley, and Floyd Hill. At Dowd Canyon, two tunnels would be required for eastbound and westbound traffic. The preferred alternative identifies a minimum and maximum range of multi-modal improvements ranging in cost from $16.1 billion to $20.2 billion estimated in year of expenditure dollars and assuming the mid year of construction for the whole alternative is 2025. The 21 action alternatives evaluated in this document range in cost from $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Energy Consumption KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759301375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 8 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873133419; 14627-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 7 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873133413; 14627-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 6 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873133408; 14627-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 5 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873132866; 14627-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 4 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873132863; 14627-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 3 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873132859; 14627-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 2 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873132855; 14627-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). [Part 1 of 8] T2 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 873132844; 14627-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH FLORIDA AND CARIBBEAN PARKS EXOTIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH FLORIDA AND CARIBBEAN PARKS EXOTIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 873130024; 14626-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an exotic plant management plan for the units of the National Park System in south Florida and the Caribbean Sea is proposed. The nine park units included in the scope of this proposal are Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Canaveral National Seashore, Christiansted National Historic Site, Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve, Dry Tortugas National Park, Everglades National Park, and Virgin Islands National Park . Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing exotic plant management regimes, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS. Under Alternative A, the nine parks would continue to treat infestations of exotic plants on an ad hoc basis and through currently available funding sources. Alternatives B and C would provide a new framework for exotic plant management involving increased planning, monitoring, and mitigation. Both action alternatives would apply a systematic approach that would prioritize exotic plants for treatment, monitor the effects of those treatments, and mitigate any adverse effects to park resources. These alternatives would employ an adaptive management strategy, using the results of monitoring to adjust treatment methods or mitigation methods to reach the desired future condition in the treated areas. The primary herbicides that would be used include metsulfuron methyl, triclopyr, imazapyr, and glyphosphate. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would augment these measures with an active restoration program to enhance the return of native species to treated areas in select high-priority zones. The difference distinguishing Alternative C from Alternative B lies in the restoration plan and some alterations to the monitoring plan and added criteria to determine the success of treatment. Under Alternative C, a decision tool would be applied to determine areas that were appropriate for active restoration, which would occur in park areas that have been previously disturbed and in areas providing potential habitat for threatened and endangered species or sensitive vegetation communities where a more rapid recovery would be desirable. The active restoration approach for a given treatment would be determined based on a site-specific evaluation. Other areas of the park would recover passively under Alternative C, as would be the case for all areas under Alternative B. Exotic plant infestations within the parks would undergo initial treatments within three years of implementation of the plant management plan. Re-treatments would occur every four to 12 months depending on the targeted exotic plant and the progress of native plant recovery. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, the effectiveness of efforts to control exotic plant invasion into native habitats would increase substantially as a result of uniform recording and storage of information acquired during monitoring and sharing of that information among the nine park units. The more aggressive approach proposed under Alternative C would hasten the recovery of especially sensitive habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exotic plant control and restoration activities involving mechanized equipment would take place in designated wilderness areas. All treated areas would undergo some disturbance to native plant communities, and incidental destruction of nontarget species, including federally protected plant, fish, and marine mammal species, would occur. 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 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100354, Abbreviated Final EIS--32 pages, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--752 pages, Draft EIS Appendices (Volume 2)--332 pages and maps, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-47 KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Herbicides KW - Historic Districts KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Systems KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Research KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reefs KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Big Cypress National Preserve KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Canaveral National Seashore KW - Christiansted National Historic Site KW - Dry Tortugas National Park KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve KW - Virgin Islands National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+FLORIDA+AND+CARIBBEAN+PARKS+EXOTIC+PLANT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=SOUTH+FLORIDA+AND+CARIBBEAN+PARKS+EXOTIC+PLANT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 873130022; 14628-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of 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 is 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. The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River since 1911 have occurred within the past 15 years, and in response, the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood damage. Roads, visitor facilities, and private development once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate current management practices, are considered in this draft 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 willing seller-willing buyer 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. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would include more high-priority land acquisition in the channel migration zone, rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road out of the floodplain/channel migration zone around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field, identification of new land protection priorities through the revised Land Protection Plan, designation of new campgrounds and a new raft takeout, closure of the shooting range, and implementation of erosion protection measures at three sites. Alternative 3 would include the same land acquisition as in Alternative 2 and would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road around McGregor Meadows. New campgrounds would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at five erosion protection 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. New campgrounds and a new raft takeout would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at seven sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help the NPS to sustainably 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: All of the action alternatives would add to cumulative effects on the Stehekin River by installation of new erosion protection structures. Alternatives 2 and 3 would create short- and long-term disturbances to land use, vegetation and soils, water quality, and wildlife during construction of the new road around McGregor Meadows and NPS facilities. The reroute could disturb a nesting site for northern spotted owls. Management of large wood and proliferation of bank protection measures have the potential to increase the spread of nonnative plants. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100356, Draft EIS--628 pages, Draft Land Protection Plan--72 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 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/873130022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129624; 14628-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of 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 is 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. The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River since 1911 have occurred within the past 15 years, and in response, the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood damage. Roads, visitor facilities, and private development once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate current management practices, are considered in this draft 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 willing seller-willing buyer 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. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would include more high-priority land acquisition in the channel migration zone, rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road out of the floodplain/channel migration zone around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field, identification of new land protection priorities through the revised Land Protection Plan, designation of new campgrounds and a new raft takeout, closure of the shooting range, and implementation of erosion protection measures at three sites. Alternative 3 would include the same land acquisition as in Alternative 2 and would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road around McGregor Meadows. New campgrounds would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at five erosion protection 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. New campgrounds and a new raft takeout would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at seven sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help the NPS to sustainably 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: All of the action alternatives would add to cumulative effects on the Stehekin River by installation of new erosion protection structures. Alternatives 2 and 3 would create short- and long-term disturbances to land use, vegetation and soils, water quality, and wildlife during construction of the new road around McGregor Meadows and NPS facilities. The reroute could disturb a nesting site for northern spotted owls. Management of large wood and proliferation of bank protection measures have the potential to increase the spread of nonnative plants. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100356, Draft EIS--628 pages, Draft Land Protection Plan--72 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 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/873129624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129194; 14628-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of 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 is 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. The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River since 1911 have occurred within the past 15 years, and in response, the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood damage. Roads, visitor facilities, and private development once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate current management practices, are considered in this draft 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 willing seller-willing buyer 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. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would include more high-priority land acquisition in the channel migration zone, rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road out of the floodplain/channel migration zone around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field, identification of new land protection priorities through the revised Land Protection Plan, designation of new campgrounds and a new raft takeout, closure of the shooting range, and implementation of erosion protection measures at three sites. Alternative 3 would include the same land acquisition as in Alternative 2 and would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road around McGregor Meadows. New campgrounds would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at five erosion protection 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. New campgrounds and a new raft takeout would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at seven sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help the NPS to sustainably 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: All of the action alternatives would add to cumulative effects on the Stehekin River by installation of new erosion protection structures. Alternatives 2 and 3 would create short- and long-term disturbances to land use, vegetation and soils, water quality, and wildlife during construction of the new road around McGregor Meadows and NPS facilities. The reroute could disturb a nesting site for northern spotted owls. Management of large wood and proliferation of bank protection measures have the potential to increase the spread of nonnative plants. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100356, Draft EIS--628 pages, Draft Land Protection Plan--72 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 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/873129194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN: VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2009). AN - 758977846; 14627 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a privately financed, fully grade-separated, dedicated double-track passenger railroad, to be known as the DesertXpress, along a 200-mile corridor from Victorville, California to Las Vegas, Nevada are proposed. High and increasing travel demand along Interstate 15 (I-15), which parallels the proposed railroad alignment, and constraints on the expansion of air travel indicate the need for an alternative mode of passenger transportation along this route. I-15 has also been the site of frequent accidents. The draft EIS of March 2009 considered two rail alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative A would provide for construction of the railroad within the median of the I-15 freeway, while Alternative B would provide for a rail line that would lie within the fenced area of the I-15 rights-of-way, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. In addition to the rail line, the project would include passenger stations in Victorville and Las Vegas, operations and maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas, and a maintenance of way facility in Baker, California. Two locomotive technology options are under consideration, specifically, diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric multiple unit (EMU) train sets. The DEMU train set would be able to reach a maximum speed of 125 miles per hour (mph), while the EMU would be able to reach a maximum speed of 150 mph. Following the publication of the draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC proposed several modifications and additions to address comments received during public and agency review. This supplemental draft EIS addresses the proposed modifications which include a new Victorville passenger station site option, a Barstow area rail alignment following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail line would provide proven high-speed rail technology and a convenient alternative to the use of the congested I-15 freeway and the declining air connections between the termini. Rail operations would provide 361 to 463 permanent jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way development would displace desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel habitat, present a barrier to wildlife movement, and result in mortality and disturbance amongst Mojave fringe-toed lizards, nesting raptors, migratory birds, banded gila monsters, burrowing owls, roosting bats, desert bighorn sheep, and American badgers. Two historic sites and numerous archaeological sites would be impacted. Approximately 3.37 acres of agricultural land would be directly impacted, and 6.75 acres indirectly impacted. The rights-of-way could encroach on up to 50 acres of 100-year floodplain and 10,000 linear feet of stream channel. Minority groups would experience disproportionate impacts in the vicinity of the Victorville Station and operations and maintenance facility sites. Traffic congestion would increase in the vicinity of the Victorville Station. The rail corridor would lie within an area affected by high seismic activity. From 50 to 80 sensitive receptor sites along the line would experience noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards. Construction workers would encounter 13 to 15 hazardous materials sites. 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 09-0193D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100355, Volume I--463 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--1,192 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Nevada KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&rft.title=DESERTXPRESS+HIGH-SPEED+PASSENGER+TRAIN%3A+VICTORVILLE%2C+CALIFORNIA+TO+LAS+VEGAS%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2009%29.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH FLORIDA AND CARIBBEAN PARKS EXOTIC PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 758977701; 14626 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an exotic plant management plan for the units of the National Park System in south Florida and the Caribbean Sea is proposed. The nine park units included in the scope of this proposal are Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, Buck Island Reef National Monument, Canaveral National Seashore, Christiansted National Historic Site, Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve, Dry Tortugas National Park, Everglades National Park, and Virgin Islands National Park . Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing exotic plant management regimes, are considered in this abbreviated final EIS. Under Alternative A, the nine parks would continue to treat infestations of exotic plants on an ad hoc basis and through currently available funding sources. Alternatives B and C would provide a new framework for exotic plant management involving increased planning, monitoring, and mitigation. Both action alternatives would apply a systematic approach that would prioritize exotic plants for treatment, monitor the effects of those treatments, and mitigate any adverse effects to park resources. These alternatives would employ an adaptive management strategy, using the results of monitoring to adjust treatment methods or mitigation methods to reach the desired future condition in the treated areas. The primary herbicides that would be used include metsulfuron methyl, triclopyr, imazapyr, and glyphosphate. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would augment these measures with an active restoration program to enhance the return of native species to treated areas in select high-priority zones. The difference distinguishing Alternative C from Alternative B lies in the restoration plan and some alterations to the monitoring plan and added criteria to determine the success of treatment. Under Alternative C, a decision tool would be applied to determine areas that were appropriate for active restoration, which would occur in park areas that have been previously disturbed and in areas providing potential habitat for threatened and endangered species or sensitive vegetation communities where a more rapid recovery would be desirable. The active restoration approach for a given treatment would be determined based on a site-specific evaluation. Other areas of the park would recover passively under Alternative C, as would be the case for all areas under Alternative B. Exotic plant infestations within the parks would undergo initial treatments within three years of implementation of the plant management plan. Re-treatments would occur every four to 12 months depending on the targeted exotic plant and the progress of native plant recovery. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, the effectiveness of efforts to control exotic plant invasion into native habitats would increase substantially as a result of uniform recording and storage of information acquired during monitoring and sharing of that information among the nine park units. The more aggressive approach proposed under Alternative C would hasten the recovery of especially sensitive habitats. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exotic plant control and restoration activities involving mechanized equipment would take place in designated wilderness areas. All treated areas would undergo some disturbance to native plant communities, and incidental destruction of nontarget species, including federally protected plant, fish, and marine mammal species, would occur. 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 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100354, Abbreviated Final EIS--32 pages, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--752 pages, Draft EIS Appendices (Volume 2)--332 pages and maps, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-47 KW - Bays KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Herbicides KW - Historic Districts KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Systems KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Plant Control KW - Preserves KW - Research KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reefs KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Big Cypress National Preserve KW - Biscayne National Park KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Canaveral National Seashore KW - Christiansted National Historic Site KW - Dry Tortugas National Park KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve KW - Virgin Islands National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+FLORIDA+AND+CARIBBEAN+PARKS+EXOTIC+PLANT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=SOUTH+FLORIDA+AND+CARIBBEAN+PARKS+EXOTIC+PLANT+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 758977627; 14628 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of 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 is 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. The three largest recorded floods on the Stehekin River since 1911 have occurred within the past 15 years, and in response, the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair flood damage. Roads, visitor facilities, and private development once thought to be safe from the river are now threatened. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate current management practices, are considered in this draft 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 willing seller-willing buyer 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. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would include more high-priority land acquisition in the channel migration zone, rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road out of the floodplain/channel migration zone around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field, identification of new land protection priorities through the revised Land Protection Plan, designation of new campgrounds and a new raft takeout, closure of the shooting range, and implementation of erosion protection measures at three sites. Alternative 3 would include the same land acquisition as in Alternative 2 and would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road around McGregor Meadows. New campgrounds would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at five erosion protection 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. New campgrounds and a new raft takeout would be designated and erosion protection measures would be implemented at seven sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help the NPS to sustainably 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: All of the action alternatives would add to cumulative effects on the Stehekin River by installation of new erosion protection structures. Alternatives 2 and 3 would create short- and long-term disturbances to land use, vegetation and soils, water quality, and wildlife during construction of the new road around McGregor Meadows and NPS facilities. The reroute could disturb a nesting site for northern spotted owls. Management of large wood and proliferation of bank protection measures have the potential to increase the spread of nonnative plants. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100356, Draft EIS--628 pages, Draft Land Protection Plan--72 pages, August 27, 2010 PY - 2010 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/758977627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-27&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133939; 14618-6_0008 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133937; 14618-6_0007 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133936; 14615-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which would have an estimated footprint of approximately 1,600 acres that would house the solar field, administration buildings, evaporation pond, generation transmission tie line, substation, and ancillary facilities. The proposed solar power project would use concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 110 megawatts. The projects proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation. Tonopah Solar Energy has executed a power purchase agreement with NV Energy for sale of the electricity produced from the facility which it expects to operate for approximately 30 years. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternative locations for the project. Alternative 1 was proposed by the Air Force to minimize impacts on training at the Nevada Test and Training Range and would involve locating the center of the project 1.85 miles north of the center of the proposed action. Under Alternative 2, the center would be located 2.4 miles west of the center of the proposed action in order to minimize impacts on soils and other resources near the Crescent Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western states where demand continues to grow. Thermal storage capability would allow renewable electricity to be produced even when the peak demand period extends into the late evening hours. Approximately 1,500 jobs would be created, $140 million of personal income would be added to the State of Nevada annually, and $160 million would be added to the gross state product annually during the peak of construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Topsoil and vegetation would be removed during grading of 1,628 to 1,673 acres and an additional 167 to 213 acres would be temporarily disturbed. Construction would directly impact Nevada oryctes, a BLM sensitive plant species. Direct effects to pale kangaroo mice and bats could result from salt water in the evaporation ponds, although a porous screen will cover the ponds. Impacts to Golden eagles and other migratory birds would include potential injury or mortality due to the operation of the facility and transmission line and the removal of potential foraging habit. Potential impacts to surface water include increased runoff flows, increased sediment transport, increased discharge and transport of contaminants, or possible affects to drainage paths or altered flow. Development of the proposed alternative would impact four historic properties. A total of eight historic properties would be impacted by Alternative 2. Visual impacts for the Crescent Dunes recreational area would be expected major. 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: 100343, 395 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 57 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133638; 14618-6_0057 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 55 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133636; 14618-6_0055 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 54 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133634; 14618-6_0054 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 49 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133633; 14618-6_0049 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 48 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133627; 14618-6_0048 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 47 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133625; 14618-6_0047 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 46 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133622; 14618-6_0046 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133622?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 42 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133620; 14618-6_0042 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 35 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133618; 14618-6_0035 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133261; 14618-6_0014 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133261?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133257; 14618-6_0009 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133249; 14618-6_0013 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133242; 14618-6_0012 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133235; 14618-6_0011 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133231; 14618-6_0010 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 25 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133198; 14618-6_0025 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 24 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133186; 14618-6_0024 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133186?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 37 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133177; 14618-6_0037 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 28 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133171; 14618-6_0028 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 23 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133166; 14618-6_0023 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 27 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133162; 14618-6_0027 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 22 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133159; 14618-6_0022 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 26 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873133155; 14618-6_0026 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873133155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133106; 14617-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to reduce the river's suspended sediment discharge to Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river, contributing to the declining clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the 18-hole regulation golf course, river and site would remain unchanged and no change would be made to the boundaries between LVSRA and WMSP. Alternative 2 would remove part of the existing golf course and re-configure it onto higher capability land to the west of the Upper Truckee River. The river would be restored to a geomorphically functional configuration reconnected to the floodplain and the golf course would be removed from most of the river meander belt and adjacent floodplain and restored to meadow. The exchange of land would be approximately equal between WMSP and LVSRA. All of the current bridges through the golf course would be removed, and one new bridge would be constructed that would allow for golfing traffic and also dispersed recreational traffic. Alternative 3 would feature the same river restoration and area of golf course removal and meadow/floodplain restoration as in Alternative 2, but no golf course holes would be relocated to the west side of the river. The smaller golf course would be reconfigured as a 9-hole or an 18-hole executive style course and all bridges would be removed. Alternative 4 would include installing large rock rip rap, biotechnical and rock bank protection, and boulder grade controls along the river. The golf course would remain in its current configuration. Holes 6 and 7 bridges would be removed and replaced with one longer bridge for golf access. Alternative 5 would include the same river and floodplain treatment as Alternatives 2 and 3, but the golf course would be completely eliminated, although the buildings would remain. Future studies would be conducted to determine other potential uses of both park units. The area where the golf course is currently located would be restored to floodplain and meadow in stages. A preferred alternative has not yet been defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP under Alternative 2 would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. Alternatives 3 and 5 would reduce golf recreation opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 100345, Volume I--161 pages, Volume II--767 pages , Volume III (Appendices)--677 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-48 KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132887; 14618-6_0005 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132872; 14618-6_0004 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 64 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132861; 14618-6_0064 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132861?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 62 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132850; 14618-6_0062 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 61 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132838; 14618-6_0061 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 58 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132814; 14618-6_0058 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 53 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132804; 14618-6_0053 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 51 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132794; 14618-6_0051 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 50 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132784; 14618-6_0050 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 41 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132777; 14618-6_0041 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 40 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132764; 14618-6_0040 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 39 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132760; 14618-6_0039 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 38 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132752; 14618-6_0038 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132421; 14618-6_0006 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873132421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 60 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131973; 14618-6_0060 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 59 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131968; 14618-6_0059 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 56 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131963; 14618-6_0056 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 52 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131956; 14618-6_0052 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 44 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131953; 14618-6_0044 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 43 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131945; 14618-6_0043 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 21 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131704; 14618-6_0021 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 20 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131695; 14618-6_0020 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131695?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 19 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131689; 14618-6_0019 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 18 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131681; 14618-6_0018 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 17 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131678; 14618-6_0017 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 16 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131671; 14618-6_0016 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131659; 14618-6_0015 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 36 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131528; 14618-6_0036 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131521; 14618-6_0003 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131511; 14618-6_0002 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131504; 14618-6_0001 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873131504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131489; 14617-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to reduce the river's suspended sediment discharge to Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river, contributing to the declining clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the 18-hole regulation golf course, river and site would remain unchanged and no change would be made to the boundaries between LVSRA and WMSP. Alternative 2 would remove part of the existing golf course and re-configure it onto higher capability land to the west of the Upper Truckee River. The river would be restored to a geomorphically functional configuration reconnected to the floodplain and the golf course would be removed from most of the river meander belt and adjacent floodplain and restored to meadow. The exchange of land would be approximately equal between WMSP and LVSRA. All of the current bridges through the golf course would be removed, and one new bridge would be constructed that would allow for golfing traffic and also dispersed recreational traffic. Alternative 3 would feature the same river restoration and area of golf course removal and meadow/floodplain restoration as in Alternative 2, but no golf course holes would be relocated to the west side of the river. The smaller golf course would be reconfigured as a 9-hole or an 18-hole executive style course and all bridges would be removed. Alternative 4 would include installing large rock rip rap, biotechnical and rock bank protection, and boulder grade controls along the river. The golf course would remain in its current configuration. Holes 6 and 7 bridges would be removed and replaced with one longer bridge for golf access. Alternative 5 would include the same river and floodplain treatment as Alternatives 2 and 3, but the golf course would be completely eliminated, although the buildings would remain. Future studies would be conducted to determine other potential uses of both park units. The area where the golf course is currently located would be restored to floodplain and meadow in stages. A preferred alternative has not yet been defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP under Alternative 2 would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. Alternatives 3 and 5 would reduce golf recreation opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 100345, Volume I--161 pages, Volume II--767 pages , Volume III (Appendices)--677 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-48 KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131482; 14617-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to reduce the river's suspended sediment discharge to Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river, contributing to the declining clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the 18-hole regulation golf course, river and site would remain unchanged and no change would be made to the boundaries between LVSRA and WMSP. Alternative 2 would remove part of the existing golf course and re-configure it onto higher capability land to the west of the Upper Truckee River. The river would be restored to a geomorphically functional configuration reconnected to the floodplain and the golf course would be removed from most of the river meander belt and adjacent floodplain and restored to meadow. The exchange of land would be approximately equal between WMSP and LVSRA. All of the current bridges through the golf course would be removed, and one new bridge would be constructed that would allow for golfing traffic and also dispersed recreational traffic. Alternative 3 would feature the same river restoration and area of golf course removal and meadow/floodplain restoration as in Alternative 2, but no golf course holes would be relocated to the west side of the river. The smaller golf course would be reconfigured as a 9-hole or an 18-hole executive style course and all bridges would be removed. Alternative 4 would include installing large rock rip rap, biotechnical and rock bank protection, and boulder grade controls along the river. The golf course would remain in its current configuration. Holes 6 and 7 bridges would be removed and replaced with one longer bridge for golf access. Alternative 5 would include the same river and floodplain treatment as Alternatives 2 and 3, but the golf course would be completely eliminated, although the buildings would remain. Future studies would be conducted to determine other potential uses of both park units. The area where the golf course is currently located would be restored to floodplain and meadow in stages. A preferred alternative has not yet been defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP under Alternative 2 would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. Alternatives 3 and 5 would reduce golf recreation opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 100345, Volume I--161 pages, Volume II--767 pages , Volume III (Appendices)--677 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-48 KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131472; 14617-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to reduce the river's suspended sediment discharge to Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river, contributing to the declining clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the 18-hole regulation golf course, river and site would remain unchanged and no change would be made to the boundaries between LVSRA and WMSP. Alternative 2 would remove part of the existing golf course and re-configure it onto higher capability land to the west of the Upper Truckee River. The river would be restored to a geomorphically functional configuration reconnected to the floodplain and the golf course would be removed from most of the river meander belt and adjacent floodplain and restored to meadow. The exchange of land would be approximately equal between WMSP and LVSRA. All of the current bridges through the golf course would be removed, and one new bridge would be constructed that would allow for golfing traffic and also dispersed recreational traffic. Alternative 3 would feature the same river restoration and area of golf course removal and meadow/floodplain restoration as in Alternative 2, but no golf course holes would be relocated to the west side of the river. The smaller golf course would be reconfigured as a 9-hole or an 18-hole executive style course and all bridges would be removed. Alternative 4 would include installing large rock rip rap, biotechnical and rock bank protection, and boulder grade controls along the river. The golf course would remain in its current configuration. Holes 6 and 7 bridges would be removed and replaced with one longer bridge for golf access. Alternative 5 would include the same river and floodplain treatment as Alternatives 2 and 3, but the golf course would be completely eliminated, although the buildings would remain. Future studies would be conducted to determine other potential uses of both park units. The area where the golf course is currently located would be restored to floodplain and meadow in stages. A preferred alternative has not yet been defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP under Alternative 2 would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. Alternatives 3 and 5 would reduce golf recreation opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 100345, Volume I--161 pages, Volume II--767 pages , Volume III (Appendices)--677 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-48 KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 45 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130955; 14618-6_0045 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873130955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130393; 14615-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which would have an estimated footprint of approximately 1,600 acres that would house the solar field, administration buildings, evaporation pond, generation transmission tie line, substation, and ancillary facilities. The proposed solar power project would use concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 110 megawatts. The projects proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation. Tonopah Solar Energy has executed a power purchase agreement with NV Energy for sale of the electricity produced from the facility which it expects to operate for approximately 30 years. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternative locations for the project. Alternative 1 was proposed by the Air Force to minimize impacts on training at the Nevada Test and Training Range and would involve locating the center of the project 1.85 miles north of the center of the proposed action. Under Alternative 2, the center would be located 2.4 miles west of the center of the proposed action in order to minimize impacts on soils and other resources near the Crescent Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western states where demand continues to grow. Thermal storage capability would allow renewable electricity to be produced even when the peak demand period extends into the late evening hours. Approximately 1,500 jobs would be created, $140 million of personal income would be added to the State of Nevada annually, and $160 million would be added to the gross state product annually during the peak of construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Topsoil and vegetation would be removed during grading of 1,628 to 1,673 acres and an additional 167 to 213 acres would be temporarily disturbed. Construction would directly impact Nevada oryctes, a BLM sensitive plant species. Direct effects to pale kangaroo mice and bats could result from salt water in the evaporation ponds, although a porous screen will cover the ponds. Impacts to Golden eagles and other migratory birds would include potential injury or mortality due to the operation of the facility and transmission line and the removal of potential foraging habit. Potential impacts to surface water include increased runoff flows, increased sediment transport, increased discharge and transport of contaminants, or possible affects to drainage paths or altered flow. Development of the proposed alternative would impact four historic properties. A total of eight historic properties would be impacted by Alternative 2. Visual impacts for the Crescent Dunes recreational area would be expected major. 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: 100343, 395 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130292; 14615-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which would have an estimated footprint of approximately 1,600 acres that would house the solar field, administration buildings, evaporation pond, generation transmission tie line, substation, and ancillary facilities. The proposed solar power project would use concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 110 megawatts. The projects proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation. Tonopah Solar Energy has executed a power purchase agreement with NV Energy for sale of the electricity produced from the facility which it expects to operate for approximately 30 years. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternative locations for the project. Alternative 1 was proposed by the Air Force to minimize impacts on training at the Nevada Test and Training Range and would involve locating the center of the project 1.85 miles north of the center of the proposed action. Under Alternative 2, the center would be located 2.4 miles west of the center of the proposed action in order to minimize impacts on soils and other resources near the Crescent Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western states where demand continues to grow. Thermal storage capability would allow renewable electricity to be produced even when the peak demand period extends into the late evening hours. Approximately 1,500 jobs would be created, $140 million of personal income would be added to the State of Nevada annually, and $160 million would be added to the gross state product annually during the peak of construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Topsoil and vegetation would be removed during grading of 1,628 to 1,673 acres and an additional 167 to 213 acres would be temporarily disturbed. Construction would directly impact Nevada oryctes, a BLM sensitive plant species. Direct effects to pale kangaroo mice and bats could result from salt water in the evaporation ponds, although a porous screen will cover the ponds. Impacts to Golden eagles and other migratory birds would include potential injury or mortality due to the operation of the facility and transmission line and the removal of potential foraging habit. Potential impacts to surface water include increased runoff flows, increased sediment transport, increased discharge and transport of contaminants, or possible affects to drainage paths or altered flow. Development of the proposed alternative would impact four historic properties. A total of eight historic properties would be impacted by Alternative 2. Visual impacts for the Crescent Dunes recreational area would be expected major. 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: 100343, 395 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 63 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129887; 14618-6_0063 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873129887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 34 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129820; 14618-6_0034 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873129820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129610; 14615-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which would have an estimated footprint of approximately 1,600 acres that would house the solar field, administration buildings, evaporation pond, generation transmission tie line, substation, and ancillary facilities. The proposed solar power project would use concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 110 megawatts. The projects proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation. Tonopah Solar Energy has executed a power purchase agreement with NV Energy for sale of the electricity produced from the facility which it expects to operate for approximately 30 years. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternative locations for the project. Alternative 1 was proposed by the Air Force to minimize impacts on training at the Nevada Test and Training Range and would involve locating the center of the project 1.85 miles north of the center of the proposed action. Under Alternative 2, the center would be located 2.4 miles west of the center of the proposed action in order to minimize impacts on soils and other resources near the Crescent Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western states where demand continues to grow. Thermal storage capability would allow renewable electricity to be produced even when the peak demand period extends into the late evening hours. Approximately 1,500 jobs would be created, $140 million of personal income would be added to the State of Nevada annually, and $160 million would be added to the gross state product annually during the peak of construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Topsoil and vegetation would be removed during grading of 1,628 to 1,673 acres and an additional 167 to 213 acres would be temporarily disturbed. Construction would directly impact Nevada oryctes, a BLM sensitive plant species. Direct effects to pale kangaroo mice and bats could result from salt water in the evaporation ponds, although a porous screen will cover the ponds. Impacts to Golden eagles and other migratory birds would include potential injury or mortality due to the operation of the facility and transmission line and the removal of potential foraging habit. Potential impacts to surface water include increased runoff flows, increased sediment transport, increased discharge and transport of contaminants, or possible affects to drainage paths or altered flow. Development of the proposed alternative would impact four historic properties. A total of eight historic properties would be impacted by Alternative 2. Visual impacts for the Crescent Dunes recreational area would be expected major. 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: 100343, 395 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128172; 14617-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to reduce the river's suspended sediment discharge to Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river, contributing to the declining clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the 18-hole regulation golf course, river and site would remain unchanged and no change would be made to the boundaries between LVSRA and WMSP. Alternative 2 would remove part of the existing golf course and re-configure it onto higher capability land to the west of the Upper Truckee River. The river would be restored to a geomorphically functional configuration reconnected to the floodplain and the golf course would be removed from most of the river meander belt and adjacent floodplain and restored to meadow. The exchange of land would be approximately equal between WMSP and LVSRA. All of the current bridges through the golf course would be removed, and one new bridge would be constructed that would allow for golfing traffic and also dispersed recreational traffic. Alternative 3 would feature the same river restoration and area of golf course removal and meadow/floodplain restoration as in Alternative 2, but no golf course holes would be relocated to the west side of the river. The smaller golf course would be reconfigured as a 9-hole or an 18-hole executive style course and all bridges would be removed. Alternative 4 would include installing large rock rip rap, biotechnical and rock bank protection, and boulder grade controls along the river. The golf course would remain in its current configuration. Holes 6 and 7 bridges would be removed and replaced with one longer bridge for golf access. Alternative 5 would include the same river and floodplain treatment as Alternatives 2 and 3, but the golf course would be completely eliminated, although the buildings would remain. Future studies would be conducted to determine other potential uses of both park units. The area where the golf course is currently located would be restored to floodplain and meadow in stages. A preferred alternative has not yet been defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP under Alternative 2 would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. Alternatives 3 and 5 would reduce golf recreation opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 100345, Volume I--161 pages, Volume II--767 pages , Volume III (Appendices)--677 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-48 KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 30 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873128155; 14618-6_0030 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873128155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 29 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873128144; 14618-6_0029 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873128144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 33 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127886; 14618-6_0033 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873127886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 32 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127880; 14618-6_0032 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873127880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 31 of 64] T2 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873127874; 14618-6_0031 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/873127874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JARBIDGE DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ELMORE, OWYHEE, AND TWIN FALLS COUNTIES, IDAHO AND ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 758977731; 14618 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 draft 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 draft 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. 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: 100346, Volume 1--512 pages, Volume 2--842 pages, Volume 3--522 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/ID/PT-10/003+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/758977731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=JARBIDGE+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ELMORE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+TWIN+FALLS+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO+AND+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER RESTORATION AND GOLF COURSE RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, LAKE TAHOE, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 758977725; 14617 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of a 1.5-mile reach of the Upper Truckee River and the reconfiguration of the Lake Tahoe Golf Course to reduce the river's suspended sediment discharge to Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California are proposed. The Upper Truckee River is the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe, with a watershed spanning more than 50 square miles. The 520-acre study area is at the upstream end of the flat glacial valley of the river just north of Meyers and south of the City of South Lake Tahoe and includes the southern portion of Washoe Meadows State Park (WMSP), Lake Valley State Recreation Area (LVSRA), and small portions of Forest Service and California Tahoe Conservancy lands. Human activities have resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant, wildlife, and fish species in the watershed and increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from the river, contributing to the declining clarity of the lake. The Lake Tahoe Golf Course was built in 1958-1960 on previous floodplain and meadow area, further degrading habitat as several of the holes are located along the river's edge. Five alternatives, including a No Project/No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, the 18-hole regulation golf course, river and site would remain unchanged and no change would be made to the boundaries between LVSRA and WMSP. Alternative 2 would remove part of the existing golf course and re-configure it onto higher capability land to the west of the Upper Truckee River. The river would be restored to a geomorphically functional configuration reconnected to the floodplain and the golf course would be removed from most of the river meander belt and adjacent floodplain and restored to meadow. The exchange of land would be approximately equal between WMSP and LVSRA. All of the current bridges through the golf course would be removed, and one new bridge would be constructed that would allow for golfing traffic and also dispersed recreational traffic. Alternative 3 would feature the same river restoration and area of golf course removal and meadow/floodplain restoration as in Alternative 2, but no golf course holes would be relocated to the west side of the river. The smaller golf course would be reconfigured as a 9-hole or an 18-hole executive style course and all bridges would be removed. Alternative 4 would include installing large rock rip rap, biotechnical and rock bank protection, and boulder grade controls along the river. The golf course would remain in its current configuration. Holes 6 and 7 bridges would be removed and replaced with one longer bridge for golf access. Alternative 5 would include the same river and floodplain treatment as Alternatives 2 and 3, but the golf course would be completely eliminated, although the buildings would remain. Future studies would be conducted to determine other potential uses of both park units. The area where the golf course is currently located would be restored to floodplain and meadow in stages. A preferred alternative has not yet been defined. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would improve geomorphic processes, ecological functions, and habitat values of the Upper Truckee River within the study area, helping to reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity while providing access to public recreation opportunities in the State Park and State Recreation Area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Placement of golf facilities in WMSP under Alternative 2 would involve removal of habitat, including tree removal, and could create noise and visual impacts on the west side of the river. Alternatives 3 and 5 would reduce golf recreation opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 100345, Volume I--161 pages, Volume II--767 pages , Volume III (Appendices)--677 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 10-48 KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Floodplains KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+RESTORATION+AND+GOLF+COURSE+RECONFIGURATION+PROJECT%2C+LAKE+TAHOE%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 15236459; 14615 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a concentrated solar thermal power plant facility approximately 13 miles northwest of Tonopah in Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on public lands to construct the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which would have an estimated footprint of approximately 1,600 acres that would house the solar field, administration buildings, evaporation pond, generation transmission tie line, substation, and ancillary facilities. The proposed solar power project would use concentrated solar power technology, using heliostats or mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver erected in the center of the solar field (the power tower or central receiver). A heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes through the receiver and is then circulated through a series of heat exchangers to generate high-pressure steam. The steam is used to power a conventional Rankine cycle steam turbine, which produces electricity. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and returned via feedwater pumps to the heat exchangers where steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling processes would be used for this project to minimize water use while continuing to maintain efficient power generation. The plant design would generate a nominal capacity of 110 megawatts. The projects proposed facility design includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot central receiver tower, a power block, buildings, a parking area, a laydown area, evaporating ponds, and an access road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt transmission line would connect the plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly substation. Tonopah Solar Energy has executed a power purchase agreement with NV Energy for sale of the electricity produced from the facility which it expects to operate for approximately 30 years. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and two alternative locations for the project. Alternative 1 was proposed by the Air Force to minimize impacts on training at the Nevada Test and Training Range and would involve locating the center of the project 1.85 miles north of the center of the proposed action. Under Alternative 2, the center would be located 2.4 miles west of the center of the proposed action in order to minimize impacts on soils and other resources near the Crescent Dunes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western states where demand continues to grow. Thermal storage capability would allow renewable electricity to be produced even when the peak demand period extends into the late evening hours. Approximately 1,500 jobs would be created, $140 million of personal income would be added to the State of Nevada annually, and $160 million would be added to the gross state product annually during the peak of construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Topsoil and vegetation would be removed during grading of 1,628 to 1,673 acres and an additional 167 to 213 acres would be temporarily disturbed. Construction would directly impact Nevada oryctes, a BLM sensitive plant species. Direct effects to pale kangaroo mice and bats could result from salt water in the evaporation ponds, although a porous screen will cover the ponds. Impacts to Golden eagles and other migratory birds would include potential injury or mortality due to the operation of the facility and transmission line and the removal of potential foraging habit. Potential impacts to surface water include increased runoff flows, increased sediment transport, increased discharge and transport of contaminants, or possible affects to drainage paths or altered flow. Development of the proposed alternative would impact four historic properties. A total of eight historic properties would be impacted by Alternative 2. Visual impacts for the Crescent Dunes recreational area would be expected major. 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: 100343, 395 pages, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NVB020-2009-0104-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15236459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=TONOPAH+SOLAR+ENERGY+CRESCENT+DUNES+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+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, Tonopah, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133934; 14593-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133406; 14592-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133394; 14592-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133386; 14592-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133379; 14592-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133373; 14592-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133370; 14592-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132402; 14593-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132384; 14593-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132367; 14593-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131153; 14593-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131144; 14593-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131136; 14593-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130385; 14593-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130151; 14593-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - GENESIS SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130013; 14593-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of the Genesis Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a concentrated solar electric generating facility, in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in Riverside County, California are proposed. Genesis Solar LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, submitted an application for certification to the California Energy Commission and is seeking a right-of-way grant for 4,640 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project site is located 25 miles west of the city of Blythe, California, south of the Palen/McCoy Wilderness Area, and north of Ford Dry Lake and Interstate 10. The Chuckwalla Mountains and Little Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness areas are also located farther south-southwest. The proposed GSEP would be entirely on federal land and would consist of two independent solar electric generating facilities with a nominal net electrical output of 125 megawatts (MW) each, for a total net electrical output of 250 MW. Electrical power would be produced using steam turbine generators fed from solar steam generators. The solar steam generators would receive heated transfer fluid from solar thermal equipment comprised of arrays of parabolic mirrors that collect energy from the sun. The GSEP generation tie-line would use the existing pole structures of the Blythe Energy Project Transmission Line to interconnect with Southern California Edisons proposed Colorado River Substation, to be located south and west of Blythe. Project-specific new transmission line, along with a new access road and new natural gas pipeline would be co-located in one 6.5-mile linear corridor to serve the main GSEP facility. The auxiliary boiler would be fueled by natural gas supplied from a new six-mile, eight-inch pipeline connected to an existing Southern California Gas pipeline located north of I-10. The GSEP would use a wet cooling tower for power plant cooling. Water for cooling tower makeup, process water (steam) makeup, and other industrial purpose uses such as mirror washing would be supplied from onsite groundwater wells, and stored in several on-site tanks. Storage tanks would contain raw water (500,000 gallons), treated water (1,250,000 gallons) and wastewater (250,000 gallons). Project cooling water blowdown would be piped to two 30-acre evaporation ponds. After used project water has gone through the evaporation process, the solids that settle at the bottom of the evaporation pond would be periodically tested, and removed to a non-hazardous waste disposal facility. Operational water requirements for the GSEP would be 1,644 acre-feet of ground water per year and California Energy Commission staff recommend a water conservation plan. This final EIS analyzes the proposed project, a No Action Alternative, two No Project alternatives that would amend the CDCA Plan, and two build alternatives. The Reduced Acreage Alternative would essentially be Unit 1 of the proposed project, including a 125 MW solar facility, which would reduce all impacts and by eliminating the eastern solar field, would reduce the water required for wet cooling by 50 percent. The Dry Cooling Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would conserve water and minimize wastewater through the use of air cooled condensers. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would develop a utility-scale solar energy project utilizing parabolic trough technology that would operate in an environmentally friendly, economically sound, and reliable way and would contribute to Californias renewable energy goals. The dry cooling technology that would be used under the preferred alternative would reduce water consumption by 87 percent as compared with the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would eliminate all of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub and other native plant and wildlife within the 1,880-acre site, result in loss of an extensive network of desert washes comprising 91 acres of state jurisdictional waters, and significantly alter the hydrology of the area by re-routing ephemeral drainages through engineered channels. The project would impact 1,786 acres of desert tortoise habitat, including 23 acres within the Chuckwalla Desert Critical Habitat Unit. The GSEP would combine with other past and reasonably foreseeable future projects to substantially reduce scenic values of wilderness areas and recreational resources in the Chuckwalla Valley and southern California desert region. Substantial impact to existing scenic resource values as seen from several wilderness viewing areas and key observation points north of the project in the vicinity of the McCoy and Palen Mountains would occur. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0115D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100339, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--460 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--479 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-42 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENESIS+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=GENESIS+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, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT SUNLIGHT SOLAR FARM PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 758977766; 14592 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 550-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic energy-generating project known as the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF) in Riverside County, California are proposed. Desert Sunlight Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar Development, Inc., has applied for a right-of-way grant from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to construct the project. The DSSF, most of the corridor for the project's proposed 220-kilovolt (kV) interconnection transmission line (Gen-Tie Line), and one of two potential sites being considered for a new 500/220-kV substation would be located on lands administered by BLM. The Red Bluff Substation would be owned and operated by Southern California Edison (SCE) and would interconnect with the existing SCE Devers-Palo Verde 1 transmission line. The applicant has also applied to the Department of Energy for a loan guarantee and the ROW authorization would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The project area is approximately six miles north of Interstate 10 and consists of largely vacant, undeveloped, and relatively flat land in the Chuckwalla Valley of the Sonoran Desert. Three full action alternatives and three No Action/No Project alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the three main project components would require a total of 4,391 acres and the Red Bluff Substation would be located on 75 acres of BLM-administered land four miles southeast of State Route 177. Alternative 2 would require 4,347 acres and would use a western location on a 160-acre parcel of private land for the proposed substation. The Reduced Solar Farm Footprint Alternative (Alternative 3) would involve a reduced power facility of 413 MW requiring 3,045 acres. The Red Bluff Substation would be situated as under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 4, all components of the project would be denied and no CDCA Plan amendment would be approved. With Alternative 5, the project would not be approved and the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the project area as unsuitable for future large-scale solar energy development. Under Alternative 6, the project would not be approved, but the CDCA plan would be amended to identify the project area as suitable for future solar energy development. Project construction is expected to take 26 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide safe and reliable electrical power and help meet policy goals by approving and financing production of renewable energy power on public lands. Implementation of Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to the desert tortoise relative to the other action alternatives. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would result in permanent removal of 4,327 acres of creosote bush scrub, six acres of desert dry wash woodland, six special status plant species, 131.6 acres of the Chuckwalla designated wildlife management area, and 137.8 acres of desert tortoise critical habitat. Construction activities and associated vehicle traffic would generate emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants in excess of regional significance thresholds. Changes in the site's geomorphic conditions and hydrology could adversely affect hydrology and water quality of desert dry wash woodland located downstream. At least 73 cultural sites and one historic district would be impacted. Changes to the characteristic landscape would alter visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 2005, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100338, Draft EIS (Volume I)--1,104 pages, Technical Appendices (Volume II)--1,025 pages, August 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-39 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Historic Districts KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Noise Assessments KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran Desert KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+SUNLIGHT+SOLAR+FARM+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132820; 14586-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132809; 14586-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132802; 14586-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132798; 14586-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132790; 14586-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132776; 14586-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 873132765; 14586-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132765?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 853676434; 14587-100333_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Harpers Ferry National Park, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia is proposed. Harpers Ferry National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1944, and became Harpers Ferry National Park on May 29, 1963. The last comprehensive management plan for the national historical park was completed in 1980 and since that date visitor use patterns have changed and 1,240 acres were authorized for addition to the park in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of August 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would present 250 years of history at the site through exhibits at a new visitor center. Visitors would enter the park at Cavalier Heights where a visitor contact station would be enlarged to provide orientation and information on the park's resources and to serve as a starting point for an expanded transportation system. It would also be a stop on the new around-the-park trail that would allow visitors to hike to all areas of the park. Visitors could ride the transportation system to Lower Town where they would be immersed in a 19th century environment of preserved historic buildings, period shops, exhibits, and outdoor furnishings. A smaller information center and bookstore would remain, but possibly in new locations. The Federal Armory would retain its current access and a study of the feasibility of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken. The train station would become a secondary portal to the site and the armory canal would be restored and rewatered. Additionally, Alternative 2 would preserve Virginius and Hall Islands as an archaeological preserve, manage Camp Hill with a campus atmosphere reminiscent of the Storer College era, rehabilitate and enlarge the historic Grandview School, preserve the Nash farm as a dairy farm of the 1940s, and manage Bolivar Heights and Schoolhouse Ridge to maintain a battlefield landscape appearance. Takeout facilities at the Potomac Wayside would be upgraded to facilitate river use and restroom facilities would be provided. Loudon Heights would be developed as a Civil War overlook and Maryland Heights would undergo stabilization of earthworks and fortifications. Alternative 3 would provide an experience similar to Alternative 2, but would depend more on partnerships with businesses and organizations for implementation. The visitor center on Cavalier Heights would serve as a combined park/regional facility and the transportation system would be smaller than the system proposed under Alternative 2. No study of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken and the armory canal would be restored but not rewatered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in an overall increased preservation of historic resources and a greatly improved visitor experience, both in Lower Town and elsewhere in the park. Alternative 3 would result in a more efficient rehabilitated National Park Service headquarters and a new emphasis on working with commercial enterprises to lease under-used historic structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in minor adverse impact on state-listed species. Possible loss of visitor access to some leased structures could occur under Alternative 3. Short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on soundscapes would be expected under both alternatives. 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 09-0132D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100333, Abbreviated Final EIS--65 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-08 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONOCACY NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 758977750; 14586 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick County, Maryland is proposed. Monocacy National Battlefield lies in an unincorporated area three miles south of the center of Frederick, the second largest incorporated city in Maryland. The battlefields boundaries encompass 1,647 acres, including most of the lands upon which the Battle of Monocacy was fought. Historic Urbana Pike (Maryland Highway 355) runs north-south through the eastern part of the battlefield and is the main access for visitors; but the heavy volumes and high speeds of commuter traffic and commercial vehicles create a safety problem and encroach upon the visitor experience. Much of the battlefield has remained closed to visitors as historic features were rehabilitated or restored, but with land acquisition nearly complete, visitation is expected to increase considerably. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. Under all the alternatives, all the historic structures would be preserved and maintained. Alternative 2 would move the administrative and maintenance staff into local leased space. Visitors would experience the battlefield on an alternative transportation system. Historic farmlands would be leased to retain their agricultural use. New trails would enable visitors to reach the railroad junction and the sites of the Union entrenchments and Major General Lew Wallaces headquarters. The maintenance facility at the Gambrill Mill would be removed and the site re-landscaped. A new entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would improve safety, and a commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any new memorials. Exhibits would be available at a stone tenant house at the Thomas Farm, and access to the battlefield would be by trail around the farm. Under Alternative 3, national battlefield administration would be moved into the Thomas House, and the maintenance facility at Gambrill Mill would be expanded. Visitors would experience the site in their own cars. Historic farmlands would be leased to continue their agricultural use. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farm stone tenant house and the new visitor center. Entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be relocated south along Maryland Highway 355 and the parking area redesigned. The Gambrill Mill trail would be extended to the historic railroad crossing. A commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials, but no new memorials would be added to the national battlefield. Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, administrative offices would be moved into the Thomas House, and maintenance would be expanded at its current location. Visitors would navigate the site in their own cars. The entrance to the 14th New Jersey Monument would be moved south to allow better sight distances. An extension to the Gambrill Mill trail would enable visitors to walk to the railroad junction and to the sites of the Union entrenchments and Wallaces headquarters. A landscaped commemorative area would be created near the Pennsylvania and Vermont memorials for any additional memorials. Exhibits would be available in the Thomas Farms stone tenant house. The possibility of a deck spanning Interstate 270 (I-270) is being evaluated and, if feasible, would be part of alternatives 2 and 4, with a road crossing I-270 in Alternative 2 and a trail crossing the deck in Alternative 4. Annual operating costs for Alternative 4 are estimated at $2.2 million in 2007 dollars and deferred maintenance is estimated at $3.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The management plan would preserve the rural historic qualities of the battlefield landscape and provide appropriate visitor services and orientation. Historic structures would be preserved and put to appropriate use and guidelines for new commemorative monuments would be developed. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in minor long-term adverse effects on visitor safety due to the lack of an alternative transportation system and would result in adverse impacts on local road networks from increased traffic. 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 09-0133D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100332, Abbreviated Final EIS--29 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-09 KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Maryland KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MONOCACY+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FREDERICK+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, Frederick, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HARPERS FERRY NATIONAL PARK, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARPERS FERRY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 758977671; 14587 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan for Harpers Ferry National Park, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia is proposed. Harpers Ferry National Monument was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1944, and became Harpers Ferry National Park on May 29, 1963. The last comprehensive management plan for the national historical park was completed in 1980 and since that date visitor use patterns have changed and 1,240 acres were authorized for addition to the park in 2004. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) which would perpetuate the current management regime, were considered in the draft EIS of August 2008. This abbreviated final EIS incorporates the draft EIS and includes comments, responses, and minor changes. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would present 250 years of history at the site through exhibits at a new visitor center. Visitors would enter the park at Cavalier Heights where a visitor contact station would be enlarged to provide orientation and information on the park's resources and to serve as a starting point for an expanded transportation system. It would also be a stop on the new around-the-park trail that would allow visitors to hike to all areas of the park. Visitors could ride the transportation system to Lower Town where they would be immersed in a 19th century environment of preserved historic buildings, period shops, exhibits, and outdoor furnishings. A smaller information center and bookstore would remain, but possibly in new locations. The Federal Armory would retain its current access and a study of the feasibility of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken. The train station would become a secondary portal to the site and the armory canal would be restored and rewatered. Additionally, Alternative 2 would preserve Virginius and Hall Islands as an archaeological preserve, manage Camp Hill with a campus atmosphere reminiscent of the Storer College era, rehabilitate and enlarge the historic Grandview School, preserve the Nash farm as a dairy farm of the 1940s, and manage Bolivar Heights and Schoolhouse Ridge to maintain a battlefield landscape appearance. Takeout facilities at the Potomac Wayside would be upgraded to facilitate river use and restroom facilities would be provided. Loudon Heights would be developed as a Civil War overlook and Maryland Heights would undergo stabilization of earthworks and fortifications. Alternative 3 would provide an experience similar to Alternative 2, but would depend more on partnerships with businesses and organizations for implementation. The visitor center on Cavalier Heights would serve as a combined park/regional facility and the transportation system would be smaller than the system proposed under Alternative 2. No study of returning John Brown's fort to its original location would be undertaken and the armory canal would be restored but not rewatered. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in an overall increased preservation of historic resources and a greatly improved visitor experience, both in Lower Town and elsewhere in the park. Alternative 3 would result in a more efficient rehabilitated National Park Service headquarters and a new emphasis on working with commercial enterprises to lease under-used historic structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 would result in minor adverse impact on state-listed species. Possible loss of visitor access to some leased structures could occur under Alternative 3. Short-term minor to moderate adverse effects on soundscapes would be expected under both alternatives. 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 09-0132D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100333, Abbreviated Final EIS--65 pages, Draft EIS--CD-ROM, August 18, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES-10-08 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Canals KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - West Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/758977671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=HARPERS+FERRY+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HARPERS+FERRY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 18, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133179; 14583-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133179?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133170; 14583-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133156; 14583-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133133; 14583-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133121; 14583-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SOUTH UNIT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 873131989; 14580-6_0002 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, 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 has 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 resource and visitor experience alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, the primary focus on expanded access and opportunities for visitors to the South Unit 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. 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 include interpretation of natural, cultural, and paleontological resources and 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 that would provide a variety of opportunities around the perimeter 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. Approximately 10 percent of the lands would be designated as development zone along the western and southern of the park and would include the White River area on the southeast corner of the park. Less than 1 percent of the park would be designated as 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 area/recreation zone would improve the protection of wildlife populations and habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development or improvement of facilities and visitor services would result in loss of vegetation and 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.). JF - EPA number: 100326, 312 pages and maps, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES-10-45 KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/873131989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SOUTH UNIT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 873131979; 14580-6_0001 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, 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 has 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 resource and visitor experience alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, the primary focus on expanded access and opportunities for visitors to the South Unit 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. 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 include interpretation of natural, cultural, and paleontological resources and 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 that would provide a variety of opportunities around the perimeter 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. Approximately 10 percent of the lands would be designated as development zone along the western and southern of the park and would include the White River area on the southeast corner of the park. Less than 1 percent of the park would be designated as 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 area/recreation zone would improve the protection of wildlife populations and habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development or improvement of facilities and visitor services would result in loss of vegetation and 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.). JF - EPA number: 100326, 312 pages and maps, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES-10-45 KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/873131979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131636; 14583-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131628; 14583-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131621; 14583-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131616; 14583-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131608; 14583-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131597; 14583-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of four solar-thermal power plants in the southern California inland desert, approximately eight miles west of the city of Blythe and three miles north of Interstate 10 in Riverside County, California are proposed. Solar Millennium, through the limited liability corporation Palo Verde Solar I, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 9,400 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). An amendment to BLM's California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, which would identify the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP) within the plan, is also proposed. The BSPP would consist of a concentrated solar thermal electric generating facility situated on 7,025 acres with four adjacent, independent, and identical units of 250 megawatt (MW) nominal capacity each for a total nominal capacity of 1,000 MW. The BSPP would utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity and would be connected to the Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission system at the planned Colorado River substation via a bundled double-circuit 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line. A new four-inch diameter, 9.8-mile long natural gas pipeline would be constructed by Southern California Gas Company to connect BSPP to an existing pipeline south of the proposed project site. The auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid heaters for each unit would be fueled by natural gas. The four BSPP units combined would use an estimated 600 acre-feet per year of water for solar mirror washing, cooling water, dust control, and other purposes. Water requirements would be met by use of groundwater pumped from wells on the project site. Project construction would require an average of 604 employees over the estimated 69-month construction period. This final EIS considers: the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative; three No Action alternatives, which include different CDCA amendment actions; and two feasible action alternatives. The reconfigured alternative would be a 1,000-MW facility like the proposed project, but the southwestern solar field (Unit 3) would be relocated 0.8 miles south of the proposed location to reduce impacts related to a major unnamed dry wash. Under the reduced acreage alternative, Unit 3 would not be constructed and the proposed project area and its impacts would be reduced by 25 percent. This alternative would result in a facility with a net generating capacity of 750 MW and a footprint of 5,825 acres. 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. Operations would directly employ 221 full-time employees. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb 7,025 acres and eliminate all wildlife habitat within the proposed site. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 1995 (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 10-0085D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100329, Final EIS (Volume 1)--743 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--525 pages, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES-10-41 KW - Airports 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 - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BLYTHE+SOLAR+POWER+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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 758977726; 14580 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, 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 has 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 resource and visitor experience alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, the primary focus on expanded access and opportunities for visitors to the South Unit 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. 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 include interpretation of natural, cultural, and paleontological resources and 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 that would provide a variety of opportunities around the perimeter 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. Approximately 10 percent of the lands would be designated as development zone along the western and southern of the park and would include the White River area on the southeast corner of the park. Less than 1 percent of the park would be designated as 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 area/recreation zone would improve the protection of wildlife populations and habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development or improvement of facilities and visitor services would result in loss of vegetation and 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.). JF - EPA number: 100326, 312 pages and maps, August 13, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES-10-45 KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/758977726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-13&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MINIDOKA DAM SPILLWAY REPLACEMENT, MINIDOKA PROJECT, IDAHO. AN - 755143321; 14578 AB - PURPOSE: Actions to correct structural problems at the Minidoka Dam spillway and associated facilities on Lake Walcott, Idaho are proposed. Minidoka Dam impounds Lake Walcott on the main stem Snake River about 18 miles northeast from the city of Burley, Idaho within the Minidoka Wildlife Refuge, and is operated as a run-of-the-river project with a few seasonal variations. Existing spillway releases travel through an extensive wetland area. After over 103 years of continued use, the 2,237-foot-long concrete spillway at the Minidoka Dam shows extensive visible deterioration at numerous locations. In addition, the potential for ice damage to the stoplog piers requires that reservoir water levels be dropped each winter. The headgate structures at the North Side and South Side canals also show serious concrete deterioration. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A); total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures (Alternative B); and replacement of just the spillway (Alternative C). Total replacement of the spillway and headgate structures is the preferred alternative. In addition, the designation of special use areas at the project site to open areas currently closed for public use is proposed. The special use areas would allow for wading and float tubing associated with fishing, birding, and ice fishing. Under Alternative B, new overflow sections would be constructed downstream of the existing spillway. The new overflow sections would have a total length of up to 1,326 feet with a uniform crest elevation of 4,245 feet. The existing spillway would be used as a cofferdam during construction and would be partially demolished upon completion of the new spillway. New radial gate sections would consist of twelve 20-foot 8-inches wide by 17-foot high gated sections separated by five-foot-wide piers and four-foot-wide end walls. New dike Section 1 would extend up to 201 feet from the southern end of the new radial gate sections and would connect to a new South Side canal headworks structure. Section 2 of the new dike section would extend up to 334 feet southeast from the new South Side canal headworks structure toward the existing south dike. The new South Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 300 feet downstream of the existing structure which would be removed following completion of the new headworks. The new North Side canal headworks would be reconstructed in the existing canal about 115 feet downstream of the existing headworks. All metalwork would be removed from the existing headworks and the existing concrete structure would be abandoned in place. Construction would take up to 31 months and would include a new service road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would prevent structural failure of the Minidoka Dam spillway and canal headworks and would ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation continues to meet obligations for water delivery, power generation, and flow augmentation. The designation of special use areas would allow historic recreational uses to continue on Bureau of Reclamation lands. Construction-related expenditures for Alternative B would result in 291 jobs, $28.5 million in output, and $10 million in labor income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would likely adversely affect two federally-listed species of snail, Utah valvata and Snake River physa. Construction would impact the historic integrity of the Minidoka Dam, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Total removal of the existing spillway in some areas such as upstream of the new radial gate sections would likely require in-water blasting. 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 10-0174D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100324, 548 pages and maps, August 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES-10-43 KW - Canals KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Power Plants KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reservoirs KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Wetlands KW - Idaho KW - Lake Walcott KW - Snake 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/755143321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MINIDOKA+DAM+SPILLWAY+REPLACEMENT%2C+MINIDOKA+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=MINIDOKA+DAM+SPILLWAY+REPLACEMENT%2C+MINIDOKA+PROJECT%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873132763; 14581-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a groundwater development and conveyance system to provide approximately 4,000 acre-feet per year of water to the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico is proposed. Relying on its existing current conservation program and its existing reliable water supplies, the City would not be capable of meeting the projected future water demands for the community in 2045. In addition, without developing brackish groundwater, the City, along with other existing water users within the region, would continue to pump the limited fresh water from the Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area. In order to develop water rights granted by the Office of the State Engineer, the City submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) for the construction and use of groundwater wells with supporting infrastructure on BLM-managed public land in the southeastern portion of the Tularosa Basin in Otero County. The City's proposal includes the construction of 10 wells in the Snake Tank well field, installation of water transmission lines across BLM-managed and non-BLM managed lands to Alamogordo, and construction of a desalination facility and a booster pump station in Alamogordo to treat the brackish groundwater to drinking water standards. Key issues identified during scoping include water provision for projected growth in the region, proximity of proposed wells to the Village of Tularosa and other residential wells outside Tularosa, groundwater drawdown, brackish water intrusion, potential effects on irrigation ditches and surface water, potential effects on ranching and agriculture in the region, and monitoring measures. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Monitoring under the proposed action would include measurements recorded in January and July of each calendar year for groundwater levels and water quality. Total cost is estimated at $8.2 million in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The provision of public land for well siting and transporting of groundwater resources would allow development of the 4,000 acre-feet per year of water rights granted by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer to the City of Alamogordo and would help meet projected 2045 demands 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, increased potential for spread of noxious weeds, and loss of up to 638 acres of agricultural land. 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. Two properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be directly 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, Public Law (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 100327, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--206 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices (Volume 2)-- 697 pages on CD-ROM, August 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-10-02-1793 KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pipelines KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management 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/873132763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-11&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873132759; 14581-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a groundwater development and conveyance system to provide approximately 4,000 acre-feet per year of water to the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico is proposed. Relying on its existing current conservation program and its existing reliable water supplies, the City would not be capable of meeting the projected future water demands for the community in 2045. In addition, without developing brackish groundwater, the City, along with other existing water users within the region, would continue to pump the limited fresh water from the Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area. In order to develop water rights granted by the Office of the State Engineer, the City submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) for the construction and use of groundwater wells with supporting infrastructure on BLM-managed public land in the southeastern portion of the Tularosa Basin in Otero County. The City's proposal includes the construction of 10 wells in the Snake Tank well field, installation of water transmission lines across BLM-managed and non-BLM managed lands to Alamogordo, and construction of a desalination facility and a booster pump station in Alamogordo to treat the brackish groundwater to drinking water standards. Key issues identified during scoping include water provision for projected growth in the region, proximity of proposed wells to the Village of Tularosa and other residential wells outside Tularosa, groundwater drawdown, brackish water intrusion, potential effects on irrigation ditches and surface water, potential effects on ranching and agriculture in the region, and monitoring measures. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Monitoring under the proposed action would include measurements recorded in January and July of each calendar year for groundwater levels and water quality. Total cost is estimated at $8.2 million in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The provision of public land for well siting and transporting of groundwater resources would allow development of the 4,000 acre-feet per year of water rights granted by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer to the City of Alamogordo and would help meet projected 2045 demands 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, increased potential for spread of noxious weeds, and loss of up to 638 acres of agricultural land. 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. Two properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be directly 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, Public Law (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 100327, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--206 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices (Volume 2)-- 697 pages on CD-ROM, August 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-10-02-1793 KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pipelines KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management 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/873132759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-11&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2007). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2007). AN - 873131556; 14577-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued development and expansion of existing open-pit gold mining and processing facilities at the Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada is proposed. Barrick Cortez Inc. (formerly known as Cortez Joint Venture or Cortez Gold Mines) originally proposed the Cortez Hills Expansion Project in 2005. Located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe, the project included development of a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The project would incorporate continued use of existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared a draft EIS in 2007 and a final EIS in 2008. Following BLM approval of the Record of Decision in November 2008, CGM commenced construction and subsequent operation of the project. As of March 1, 2010, approximately 70 percent of the ultimate footprint of the mine has been disturbed by construction and mining. The open pit currently is being worked at an elevation of 5,720 feet above mean sea level or 400 feet deep, and measures one mile in length and 0.75 mile in width. Approximately 80 million tons of waste rock has been placed in the Canyon Waste Rock Facility. In response to litigation, the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, entered a limited injunction on April 13, 2010 prohibiting the shipping of refractory ore from Cortez Hills and pumping of groundwater in excess of previously approved rates. This draft supplemental EIS analyzes the air quality impacts of the off-site transportation to and processing of Cortez refractory ore at the existing Goldstike Mine 70 miles north of the Cortez Hills Expansion Project. An air quality analysis of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of up to 2.5 micrometers is included. In addition, the analysis of measures adopted to mitigate potential impacts to surface water resources from mine dewatering are further refined. The preferred alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued BLM authorization of mineral rights would allow the applicant access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would continue to employ construction and operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in further disturbance of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife and aquatic habitat. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0421F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100323, 58 pages and maps, August 11, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-2010-0132-SEIS KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Indian Reservations KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/873131556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2007%29.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 758977737; 14581 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a groundwater development and conveyance system to provide approximately 4,000 acre-feet per year of water to the City of Alamogordo, New Mexico is proposed. Relying on its existing current conservation program and its existing reliable water supplies, the City would not be capable of meeting the projected future water demands for the community in 2045. In addition, without developing brackish groundwater, the City, along with other existing water users within the region, would continue to pump the limited fresh water from the Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area. In order to develop water rights granted by the Office of the State Engineer, the City submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) for the construction and use of groundwater wells with supporting infrastructure on BLM-managed public land in the southeastern portion of the Tularosa Basin in Otero County. The City's proposal includes the construction of 10 wells in the Snake Tank well field, installation of water transmission lines across BLM-managed and non-BLM managed lands to Alamogordo, and construction of a desalination facility and a booster pump station in Alamogordo to treat the brackish groundwater to drinking water standards. Key issues identified during scoping include water provision for projected growth in the region, proximity of proposed wells to the Village of Tularosa and other residential wells outside Tularosa, groundwater drawdown, brackish water intrusion, potential effects on irrigation ditches and surface water, potential effects on ranching and agriculture in the region, and monitoring measures. In addition to the proposed action (Alternative B), this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Monitoring under the proposed action would include measurements recorded in January and July of each calendar year for groundwater levels and water quality. Total cost is estimated at $8.2 million in 2005 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The provision of public land for well siting and transporting of groundwater resources would allow development of the 4,000 acre-feet per year of water rights granted by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer to the City of Alamogordo and would help meet projected 2045 demands 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, increased potential for spread of noxious weeds, and loss of up to 638 acres of agricultural land. 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. Two properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be directly 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, Public Law (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 100327, Draft EIS (Volume 1)--206 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices (Volume 2)-- 697 pages on CD-ROM, August 11, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-10-02-1793 KW - Farmlands KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pipelines KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management 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/758977737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-11&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 - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORTEZ HILLS EXPANSION PROJECT, LANDER AND EUREKA COUNTIES, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2007). AN - 755142910; 14577 AB - PURPOSE: The continued development and expansion of existing open-pit gold mining and processing facilities at the Cortez Gold Mines (CGM) Operations Area in Crescent Valley, Lander and Eureka counties, Nevada is proposed. Barrick Cortez Inc. (formerly known as Cortez Joint Venture or Cortez Gold Mines) originally proposed the Cortez Hills Expansion Project in 2005. Located in north-central Nevada approximately 24 miles south of Beowawe, the project included development of a new open-pit mine, underground mining, three new waste rock facilities, a new heap leach pad, and related roads, transmission lines, and other ancillary facilities. The project would incorporate continued use of existing complexes and expansion of existing pits and waste rock facilities in the Pipeline and Cortez complexes. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared a draft EIS in 2007 and a final EIS in 2008. Following BLM approval of the Record of Decision in November 2008, CGM commenced construction and subsequent operation of the project. As of March 1, 2010, approximately 70 percent of the ultimate footprint of the mine has been disturbed by construction and mining. The open pit currently is being worked at an elevation of 5,720 feet above mean sea level or 400 feet deep, and measures one mile in length and 0.75 mile in width. Approximately 80 million tons of waste rock has been placed in the Canyon Waste Rock Facility. In response to litigation, the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, entered a limited injunction on April 13, 2010 prohibiting the shipping of refractory ore from Cortez Hills and pumping of groundwater in excess of previously approved rates. This draft supplemental EIS analyzes the air quality impacts of the off-site transportation to and processing of Cortez refractory ore at the existing Goldstike Mine 70 miles north of the Cortez Hills Expansion Project. An air quality analysis of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of up to 2.5 micrometers is included. In addition, the analysis of measures adopted to mitigate potential impacts to surface water resources from mine dewatering are further refined. The preferred alternative consists of the applicant's proposal with the revised Cortez Hills pit design for Cortez Hills Complex facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Continued BLM authorization of mineral rights would allow the applicant access to minerals owned by the applicant. Gold mined and processed would contribute to the nation's holdings of this strategic precious metal. The proposed action would continue to employ construction and operations workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in further disturbance of vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife and aquatic habitat. 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 07-0443D, Volume 31, Number 4 and 08-0421F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100323, 58 pages and maps, August 11, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-2010-0132-SEIS KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Indian Reservations KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Ranges KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Battle Mountain Resource Management Area KW - Nevada 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/755142910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2007%29.&rft.title=CORTEZ+HILLS+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+AND+EUREKA+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 11, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY. AN - 853675528; 14575-100321_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, Middlesboro, Kentucky is proposed. The park is located on the tri-state boundaries of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee and encompasses 24,531 acres including 14,091 acres of recommended wilderness and portions of the Fern Lake watershed. The park lies in four counties in the three states, ranges from one to four miles in width, and stretches for 20 miles astride the Cumberland and Brush Mountains. The entire Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The parks last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1979, and since that time, patterns and types of visitor use have changed and the parks primary cultural landscape element has also changed as a result of construction projects involving the twin-bore Cumberland Gap Tunnel system, highway relocations, and the rehabilitation of the Cumberland Gap and Wilderness Road. In addition, acquisition of the Fern Lake watershed requires a defined management approach for resource use and protection. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to: education, communication, and outreach activities; partnering to maximize services; access to important resources within the park; protection of resources; and socioeconomics within the tri-state area. Four management zones were developed for the park: a cultural resource zone, a natural zone, a recommended wilderness zone, and a developed zone. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, some additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy a wide variety of cultural and natural resources in an outdoor setting would be provided. This would be achieved by locating new facilities primarily within the newly established developed zones at Fern Lake, areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement, the visitor center, and the wilderness campground. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would provide additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy the parks cultural and natural resources, while increasing and formalizing partnering efforts, and increasing opportunities for educational and interpretive activities. Eleven new facilities would be constructed in developed zones near Fern Lake, the Gap area, and areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement. The recommended wilderness zone would be the same under Alternatives B and C and would encompass the majority of the park. The 4,500-acre Fern Lake watershed and Fern Lake and surrounding area would be fully acquired and would be open for visitor use under any of the alternatives. New facilities at Fern Lake could include a composting comfort station and the acquisition, stabilization, and maintenance of a boat house and two residences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would update the management framework for the park, address changing issues and conditions, incorporate new resource information, and provide management direction for resource use and protection within newly acquired park lands. Under all alternatives, wilderness area would be maintained providing outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive wilderness experiences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the action alternatives would have minor and adverse impacts for soundscape, scenic resources, and visual quality. 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 09-0388D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100321, 488 pages and maps, August 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-32 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Cumberland Gap National Historical Park KW - Fern Lake KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middlesboro, Kentucky; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, MIDDLESBORO, KENTUCKY. AN - 755143356; 14575 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, Middlesboro, Kentucky is proposed. The park is located on the tri-state boundaries of Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee and encompasses 24,531 acres including 14,091 acres of recommended wilderness and portions of the Fern Lake watershed. The park lies in four counties in the three states, ranges from one to four miles in width, and stretches for 20 miles astride the Cumberland and Brush Mountains. The entire Cumberland Gap National Historical Park is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The parks last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1979, and since that time, patterns and types of visitor use have changed and the parks primary cultural landscape element has also changed as a result of construction projects involving the twin-bore Cumberland Gap Tunnel system, highway relocations, and the rehabilitation of the Cumberland Gap and Wilderness Road. In addition, acquisition of the Fern Lake watershed requires a defined management approach for resource use and protection. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to: education, communication, and outreach activities; partnering to maximize services; access to important resources within the park; protection of resources; and socioeconomics within the tri-state area. Four management zones were developed for the park: a cultural resource zone, a natural zone, a recommended wilderness zone, and a developed zone. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, some additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy a wide variety of cultural and natural resources in an outdoor setting would be provided. This would be achieved by locating new facilities primarily within the newly established developed zones at Fern Lake, areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement, the visitor center, and the wilderness campground. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would provide additional opportunities for access for visitors to enjoy the parks cultural and natural resources, while increasing and formalizing partnering efforts, and increasing opportunities for educational and interpretive activities. Eleven new facilities would be constructed in developed zones near Fern Lake, the Gap area, and areas adjacent to the Hensley Settlement. The recommended wilderness zone would be the same under Alternatives B and C and would encompass the majority of the park. The 4,500-acre Fern Lake watershed and Fern Lake and surrounding area would be fully acquired and would be open for visitor use under any of the alternatives. New facilities at Fern Lake could include a composting comfort station and the acquisition, stabilization, and maintenance of a boat house and two residences. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The general management plan would update the management framework for the park, address changing issues and conditions, incorporate new resource information, and provide management direction for resource use and protection within newly acquired park lands. Under all alternatives, wilderness area would be maintained providing outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive wilderness experiences. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the action alternatives would have minor and adverse impacts for soundscape, scenic resources, and visual quality. 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 09-0388D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100321, 488 pages and maps, August 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-32 KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources KW - Historic Districts KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Cumberland Gap National Historical Park KW - Fern Lake KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.title=CUMBERLAND+GAP+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MIDDLESBORO%2C+KENTUCKY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Middlesboro, Kentucky; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133422; 14570-6_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133418; 14570-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 51 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133410; 14570-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133405; 14570-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133402; 14570-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133395; 14570-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133388; 14570-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133367; 14570-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133355; 14570-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133344; 14570-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133332; 14570-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133332?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133326; 14570-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133315; 14570-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133015; 14570-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 91 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132999; 14570-6_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132996; 14570-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132992; 14570-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132992?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132977; 14570-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132962; 14570-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132947; 14570-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132931; 14570-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 90 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132656; 14570-6_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 89 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132643; 14570-6_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 81 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132611; 14570-6_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 79 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132592; 14570-6_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 73 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132575; 14570-6_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 69 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132562; 14570-6_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 68 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132553; 14570-6_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 62 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132536; 14570-6_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132448; 14570-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132438; 14570-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132426; 14570-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132387; 14570-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132371; 14570-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132353; 14570-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132343; 14570-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132329; 14570-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132324; 14570-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132317; 14570-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 85 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132227; 14570-6_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 84 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132212; 14570-6_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 76 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132189; 14570-6_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 75 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132183; 14570-6_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 87 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132032; 14570-6_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 86 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132025; 14570-6_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 78 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132015; 14570-6_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 77 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131960; 14570-6_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 72 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131948; 14570-6_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 71 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131942; 14570-6_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 70 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131933; 14570-6_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131716; 14570-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131702; 14570-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131687; 14570-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131676; 14570-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131660; 14570-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131644; 14570-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 67 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131630; 14570-6_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 66 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131611; 14570-6_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131610; 14570-6_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131481; 14570-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131457; 14570-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131445; 14570-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131426; 14570-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131412; 14570-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131403; 14570-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131390; 14570-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131376; 14570-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 56 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130890; 14570-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130858; 14570-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 65 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129946; 14570-6_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 59 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129919; 14570-6_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129884; 14570-6_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129873; 14570-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129841; 14570-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129723; 14570-6_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129690; 14570-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 58 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129492; 14570-6_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129457; 14570-6_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 91] T2 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129191; 14570-6_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IONE BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS 228.04-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST LAND TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 755142797; 14570 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 228.04 acres to provide a site for the development of a casino, event center, hotel, and other facilities supporting the casino in the City of Plymouth and Amador County, California is proposed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Tribe). The Tribe, which consists of 652 members, presently has no land in trust and is eligible to acquire land for reservation purposes. The gaming resort would be managed by a professional management company on behalf of the Tribe's government pursuant to the terms of a management agreement to be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resort site is located immediately adjacent to State Highway (SH) 49 two miles north of the junction of SH 16 and SH 49; it lies partially within the incorporated city of Plymouth (10.3 acres) and unincorporated Amador County (217.8 acres). Surrounding land uses include grazing land to the east and south and commercial uses to the north and west. Key issues identified during scoping relate to the availability of water, problem gambling, crime, and traffic. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. The Tribe's proposal (Alternative A), which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a 120,000-square-foot casino supported by a 166,500-square-foot, five-story hotel and a 30,000-square-foot event and convention center. The casino would offer visitors 2,000 slot machines, 40 gaming tables, other back-of-house areas, and food and beverage areas, including a buffet, a specialty restaurant, and a coffee bar and sports bar. In addition, the proposed alternative would include surface parking facilities, a wastewater treatment plant and disposal facility, two water storage tanks to store water pumped from wells located on and off the site or a connection to the municipal water system, one reclaimed water storage tank, surface water discharge facilities or a treated wastewater reservoir, a stormwater detention facility, site landscaping, and a fire station. The resort complex would be constructed over two phases, with the majority of the components developed during the first phase and the hotel and event center constructed during the second. Action alternatives to the proposed action include casino and hotel development on a reduced scale, development of a casino on a reduced scale with no hotel, and development of a regional shopping center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino, event center, and hotel and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. The trust land, which is located within the Tribe's ancestral territory, would serve as an initial reservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require disturbance and displacement of soils and vegetation, some of which provides wildlife habitat. Water and energy consumption in the area would rise significantly, as would the level of sewage and solid waste generation. Increased consumption of groundwater could affect neighboring wells. The resort complex would be situated in an area affected by seismic activity. Traffic generated by site activities would reduce levels of service on the local road system. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0220D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100316, Final EIS--612 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I-III)--CD-ROM, August 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - California KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IONE+BAND+OF+MIWOK+INDIANS+228.04-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+LAND+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+AMADOR+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 - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133461; 14564-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133457; 14564-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133451; 14564-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133443; 14564-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133441; 14564-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133436; 14564-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133118; 14564-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133111; 14564-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133105; 14564-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873133105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132493; 14564-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873132493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132492; 14564-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873132492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132482; 14564-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873132482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132471; 14564-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873132471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132466; 14564-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873132466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131747; 14564-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873131747?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131741; 14564-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873131741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131734; 14564-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873131734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 18] T2 - CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS LUCERNE VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130902; 14564-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of right-of way (ROW) for construction of a 45-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic plant and associated facilities on 516 acres of federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Mojave Desert, approximately eight miles east of Lucerne Valley in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. The ROW for the Lucerne Valley Solar Project, as applied for by Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) plan that would designate the proposed site as suitable for solar energy generation. Project elements would include a solar field, control and maintenance building, switchyard, power lines, and a parking area. Solar arrays would be composed of several photovoltaic panels, each measuring 40 inches by 55 inches and six feet in height above ground level. The proposed project would be built in two phases. Phase I would consist of the construction and operation of a 20-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would include an interconnection to the existing Southern California Edison (SCE) 33-kilovolt (kV) distribution line located north of the site. Phase II would include construction and operation of a 25-MW solar plant and associated facilities and would be contingent upon available transmission capacity and future power sales. The applicant's proposal would reroute a portion of Zircon Road, a currently designated route of travel. Five alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action/No Plan Amendment Alternative (Alternative 1), the CES application would be denied and current management of the site would be maintained. Under Alternative 2, the application would be denied and the CDCA plan would be amended to declare the site either suitable or unsuitable for solar development. Under Alternative 3, BLM would grant the CES a ROW for their project as proposed. Alternatives 4 would involve granting the applicant a ROW for a modified project design requiring a 50-foot setback from Santa Fe Fire Road and a natural vegetation screen to reduce impacts on visual resources. Under Alternative 5, ROW would be granted for a smaller project with a reduced 30-MW output that would be constructed on 238 acres. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action and the modified site layout. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation at a site with excellent solar radiation, proximity to potential customers, and access to existing electric transmission would help address federal and state mandates designed to increase the production of renewable energy. Construction phase direct spending of $20 million would generate a total of $36.1 million in total output to the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Desert tortoise and northern harrier, prairie falcon, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and other migratory bird species could be adversely affected. Construction would generate air pollutant emissions such as vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust in violation of standards. There would be a strong potential for wind and water erosion over the 12.5 acres where topsoil and vegetation would be removed. The introduction of an artificial water source into the area could provide habitat for the Argentine ant, an invasive species in California. 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 10-0016D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100310, Final EIS (Volume I)--461 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--358 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume III)--545 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-CA D008-2008-0030 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Erosion KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - Mojave 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/873130902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CHEVRON+ENERGY+SOLUTIONS+LUCERNE+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853676562; 14563-100309_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853676562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853676548; 14563-100309_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853676548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853676433; 14563-100309_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853676433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853676432; 14563-100309_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853676432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675828; 14563-100309_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675822; 14563-100309_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675814; 14563-100309_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675586; 14563-100309_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675585; 14563-100309_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675542; 14563-100309_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675526; 14563-100309_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 853675525; 14563-100309_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/853675525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LITTLE SNAKE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOFFAT, ROUTT, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 755142887; 14563 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of a general resource management plan for the Little Snake Resource Management Area, Moffatt, Routt, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area is comprised of 1.3 million acres of surface federal ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and state lands in northwestern Colorado. The existing resource management plan, established in April 1989 and amended three times since, is now outdated. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to energy and minerals, special management areas, transportation and travel management, wildlife, socioeconomic values, and land tenure and realty. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the existing management regime, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would use adaptive management criteria to prioritize implementation planning in areas with the greatest need. Designation of areas of critical environmental concern and Wilderness Study Areas would be limited to those areas where such designations were necessary to protect sensitive resources, and specific management prescriptions would be applied to areas that do not receive such designations. Existing special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would remain in place and additional SRMAs and backcountry areas would be identified to provide for a diverse recreational experience. The acreage closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) and in which OHV use would be restricted would increase, but the plan would allot some areas for open OHV use. Areas designated for no surface occupancy with respect to oil and gas lease developments would be designated as no ground-level development for other uses. Specific land allocations and usage allowances and restrictions under Alternative C would address adaptive management, air quality, soils management, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat and special status species, wild horses, fire management cultural and heritage resources, paleontologic sites, visual resources, oil and gas resource development, coal and oil shale development, other locatable minerals, mineral material sales, livestock grazing, recreation resources, forestry, and transportation and access and travel management. Coordination with four organizations representing Native American tribes living in the area would be undertaken. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would implement a multiple-use, sustained yield scenario within the planning area, ensuring maximum resource exploitation value, while protecting sensitive resources and applying the most current information to allow the establishment of priorities for flexible, proactive management of public lands. Protection of greater sage grouse and other wildlife habitat would be maintained or increased. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and timber production, oil and natural gas leasing activities, livestock grazing, recreational facilities development and recreational uses would disturb and/or displace vegetation and soils and result in the disturbance and loss of wildlife habitat and the erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Grazing would also result in erosion and damage to vegetation and wetland areas. Any development activity could disturb as yet unidentified cultural and/or paleontological resource sites. OHV uses would continue to come into conflict with users seeking a more naturalistic, pristine experience within the planning area. 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 07-0062D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100309, Volume 1--448 pages, Volume 2--638 pages, Volume 3--648 pages, August 5, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES-10-28 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Livestock KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Quality KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Colorado KW - Little Snake Resource 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/755142887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+RIO+BLANCO+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=LITTLE+SNAKE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MOFFAT%2C+ROUTT%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, Craig, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 853675597; 14559-100305_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The 13.2 million acre park and preserve was established in 1980 and includes the largest contiguous area of designated wilderness in the United States. Encompassing portions of three major mountain ranges, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve also protects free-flowing braided glacial river systems, including the Copper, Chitina, Bremner, Nebesna, White, and Chisana rivers. It is also an inhabited area where local communities and traditional human activities remain integrated with the wilderness setting. The history of ORV use in the Nabesna District predates the establishment of the park and an established trail network is used for recreation and subsistence as well as a means to access private inholdongs and commercial establishments. The proposed plan includes a range of management actions for ORV use and includes specific trail improvements and ORV administration for the following trails: the Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, Reeve Field, Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails and the existing trail systems in designated wilderness south of Copper Lake (Black Mountain) and south of Tanada Lake. Outside of designated wilderness, the park has permitted the use of recreational ORVs on these trails and they receive more motorized use and consequently have more impacts associated with them than other trails in the area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, recreational use would not be permitted on Suslota, Tanada Lake, and part of Copper Lake trails as they are the most degraded. There would be no change in administration or subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Alternative 2 would permit recreational use on all nine trails and there would be no change in subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Under Alternative 3, recreational ORV use would not be permitted on any of the nine trails and 2.5 miles of motorized trail (part of Soda Lake trail) would be improved for subsistence ORV use or non-motorized uses. Subsistence ORV use would continue, but management actions, including spot maintenance, vehicle class restrictions, seasonal closures, and area closures would be taken if monitoring showed resource impacts increasing over time. Alternative 4 would improve eight of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition through trail hardening, tread improvement, or constructed re-routes. Recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the National Preserve (Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, Soda Lake, and Reeve Field trails) but not on trails in the National Park (Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails). Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action. Alternative 5 would improve most degraded segments of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition and recreational ORV use would be permitted on both National Park and National Preserve trails after improvements are completed. Recreational ORV use would not be permitted on the 7.3 miles Suslota trail. Subsistence ORV use would continue but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. On the trail systems in the designated wilderness, subsistence ORV users would be required to stay on designated trails. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would provide for continued opportunities for access to wilderness and backcountry recreational activities, accommodate subsistence and access to inholdings, and protect scenic quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other park resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting of recreational ORV use on unimproved trails under Alternative 2 would result in expanded resource impacts to existing degraded trails. Access for sport hunters would be severely curtailed under Alternative 3. Improving trails in the park to the wilderness boundary would increase the level of ORV use for subsistence purposes in designated wilderness and would have a major impact on wilderness character. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, improved ORV access for sport hunters and subsistence hunters could result in increased hunting pressure and impacts to wildlife. Trail construction or improvement would result in short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100305, 504 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-40 KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Alaska KW - Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Copper Center, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 853675596; 14559-100305_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The 13.2 million acre park and preserve was established in 1980 and includes the largest contiguous area of designated wilderness in the United States. Encompassing portions of three major mountain ranges, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve also protects free-flowing braided glacial river systems, including the Copper, Chitina, Bremner, Nebesna, White, and Chisana rivers. It is also an inhabited area where local communities and traditional human activities remain integrated with the wilderness setting. The history of ORV use in the Nabesna District predates the establishment of the park and an established trail network is used for recreation and subsistence as well as a means to access private inholdongs and commercial establishments. The proposed plan includes a range of management actions for ORV use and includes specific trail improvements and ORV administration for the following trails: the Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, Reeve Field, Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails and the existing trail systems in designated wilderness south of Copper Lake (Black Mountain) and south of Tanada Lake. Outside of designated wilderness, the park has permitted the use of recreational ORVs on these trails and they receive more motorized use and consequently have more impacts associated with them than other trails in the area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, recreational use would not be permitted on Suslota, Tanada Lake, and part of Copper Lake trails as they are the most degraded. There would be no change in administration or subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Alternative 2 would permit recreational use on all nine trails and there would be no change in subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Under Alternative 3, recreational ORV use would not be permitted on any of the nine trails and 2.5 miles of motorized trail (part of Soda Lake trail) would be improved for subsistence ORV use or non-motorized uses. Subsistence ORV use would continue, but management actions, including spot maintenance, vehicle class restrictions, seasonal closures, and area closures would be taken if monitoring showed resource impacts increasing over time. Alternative 4 would improve eight of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition through trail hardening, tread improvement, or constructed re-routes. Recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the National Preserve (Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, Soda Lake, and Reeve Field trails) but not on trails in the National Park (Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails). Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action. Alternative 5 would improve most degraded segments of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition and recreational ORV use would be permitted on both National Park and National Preserve trails after improvements are completed. Recreational ORV use would not be permitted on the 7.3 miles Suslota trail. Subsistence ORV use would continue but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. On the trail systems in the designated wilderness, subsistence ORV users would be required to stay on designated trails. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would provide for continued opportunities for access to wilderness and backcountry recreational activities, accommodate subsistence and access to inholdings, and protect scenic quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other park resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting of recreational ORV use on unimproved trails under Alternative 2 would result in expanded resource impacts to existing degraded trails. Access for sport hunters would be severely curtailed under Alternative 3. Improving trails in the park to the wilderness boundary would increase the level of ORV use for subsistence purposes in designated wilderness and would have a major impact on wilderness character. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, improved ORV access for sport hunters and subsistence hunters could result in increased hunting pressure and impacts to wildlife. Trail construction or improvement would result in short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100305, 504 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-40 KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Alaska KW - Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Copper Center, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 853675593; 14559-100305_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The 13.2 million acre park and preserve was established in 1980 and includes the largest contiguous area of designated wilderness in the United States. Encompassing portions of three major mountain ranges, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve also protects free-flowing braided glacial river systems, including the Copper, Chitina, Bremner, Nebesna, White, and Chisana rivers. It is also an inhabited area where local communities and traditional human activities remain integrated with the wilderness setting. The history of ORV use in the Nabesna District predates the establishment of the park and an established trail network is used for recreation and subsistence as well as a means to access private inholdongs and commercial establishments. The proposed plan includes a range of management actions for ORV use and includes specific trail improvements and ORV administration for the following trails: the Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, Reeve Field, Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails and the existing trail systems in designated wilderness south of Copper Lake (Black Mountain) and south of Tanada Lake. Outside of designated wilderness, the park has permitted the use of recreational ORVs on these trails and they receive more motorized use and consequently have more impacts associated with them than other trails in the area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, recreational use would not be permitted on Suslota, Tanada Lake, and part of Copper Lake trails as they are the most degraded. There would be no change in administration or subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Alternative 2 would permit recreational use on all nine trails and there would be no change in subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Under Alternative 3, recreational ORV use would not be permitted on any of the nine trails and 2.5 miles of motorized trail (part of Soda Lake trail) would be improved for subsistence ORV use or non-motorized uses. Subsistence ORV use would continue, but management actions, including spot maintenance, vehicle class restrictions, seasonal closures, and area closures would be taken if monitoring showed resource impacts increasing over time. Alternative 4 would improve eight of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition through trail hardening, tread improvement, or constructed re-routes. Recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the National Preserve (Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, Soda Lake, and Reeve Field trails) but not on trails in the National Park (Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails). Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action. Alternative 5 would improve most degraded segments of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition and recreational ORV use would be permitted on both National Park and National Preserve trails after improvements are completed. Recreational ORV use would not be permitted on the 7.3 miles Suslota trail. Subsistence ORV use would continue but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. On the trail systems in the designated wilderness, subsistence ORV users would be required to stay on designated trails. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would provide for continued opportunities for access to wilderness and backcountry recreational activities, accommodate subsistence and access to inholdings, and protect scenic quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other park resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting of recreational ORV use on unimproved trails under Alternative 2 would result in expanded resource impacts to existing degraded trails. Access for sport hunters would be severely curtailed under Alternative 3. Improving trails in the park to the wilderness boundary would increase the level of ORV use for subsistence purposes in designated wilderness and would have a major impact on wilderness character. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, improved ORV access for sport hunters and subsistence hunters could result in increased hunting pressure and impacts to wildlife. Trail construction or improvement would result in short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100305, 504 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-40 KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Alaska KW - Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Copper Center, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEBESNA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 755142875; 14559 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of an off-road vehicle (ORV) management plan for the Nabesna District of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The 13.2 million acre park and preserve was established in 1980 and includes the largest contiguous area of designated wilderness in the United States. Encompassing portions of three major mountain ranges, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve also protects free-flowing braided glacial river systems, including the Copper, Chitina, Bremner, Nebesna, White, and Chisana rivers. It is also an inhabited area where local communities and traditional human activities remain integrated with the wilderness setting. The history of ORV use in the Nabesna District predates the establishment of the park and an established trail network is used for recreation and subsistence as well as a means to access private inholdongs and commercial establishments. The proposed plan includes a range of management actions for ORV use and includes specific trail improvements and ORV administration for the following trails: the Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, Reeve Field, Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails and the existing trail systems in designated wilderness south of Copper Lake (Black Mountain) and south of Tanada Lake. Outside of designated wilderness, the park has permitted the use of recreational ORVs on these trails and they receive more motorized use and consequently have more impacts associated with them than other trails in the area. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 1, recreational use would not be permitted on Suslota, Tanada Lake, and part of Copper Lake trails as they are the most degraded. There would be no change in administration or subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Alternative 2 would permit recreational use on all nine trails and there would be no change in subsistence ORV use and no trail improvements. Under Alternative 3, recreational ORV use would not be permitted on any of the nine trails and 2.5 miles of motorized trail (part of Soda Lake trail) would be improved for subsistence ORV use or non-motorized uses. Subsistence ORV use would continue, but management actions, including spot maintenance, vehicle class restrictions, seasonal closures, and area closures would be taken if monitoring showed resource impacts increasing over time. Alternative 4 would improve eight of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition through trail hardening, tread improvement, or constructed re-routes. Recreational ORV use would be permitted on trails in the National Preserve (Caribou Creek, Lost Creek, Trail Creek, Soda Lake, and Reeve Field trails) but not on trails in the National Park (Tanada Lake, Copper Lake, and Boomerang trails). Subsistence ORV use would continue, but would be subject to monitoring and management action. Alternative 5 would improve most degraded segments of the nine trails to at least a maintainable condition and recreational ORV use would be permitted on both National Park and National Preserve trails after improvements are completed. Recreational ORV use would not be permitted on the 7.3 miles Suslota trail. Subsistence ORV use would continue but would be subject to monitoring and management action if resource impacts increased. On the trail systems in the designated wilderness, subsistence ORV users would be required to stay on designated trails. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the plan would provide for continued opportunities for access to wilderness and backcountry recreational activities, accommodate subsistence and access to inholdings, and protect scenic quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other park resource values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permitting of recreational ORV use on unimproved trails under Alternative 2 would result in expanded resource impacts to existing degraded trails. Access for sport hunters would be severely curtailed under Alternative 3. Improving trails in the park to the wilderness boundary would increase the level of ORV use for subsistence purposes in designated wilderness and would have a major impact on wilderness character. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, improved ORV access for sport hunters and subsistence hunters could result in increased hunting pressure and impacts to wildlife. Trail construction or improvement would result in short-term impacts to soils, vegetation, and wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100305, 504 pages and maps, August 4, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: DES 10-40 KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Alaska KW - Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755142875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NEBESNA+OFF-ROAD+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WRANGELL-ST.+ELIAS+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Copper Center, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-23 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 4, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLOVERDALE RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND RESORT CASINO PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CLOVERDALE RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND RESORT CASINO PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133050; 14553-0_0002 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 draft 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. 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: 100300, Draft EIS--497 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs 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/873133050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLOVERDALE RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND RESORT CASINO PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CLOVERDALE RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND RESORT CASINO PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131438; 14553-0_0001 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 draft 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. 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: 100300, Draft EIS--497 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs 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/873131438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527092; 14555-100302_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527029; 14555-100302_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816527029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527023; 14556-100303_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 would be 275 MW, described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require 2,320 acres and the renewable energy would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a two-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers and the additional energy would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line, described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. A BLM-preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), which was developed in this final EIS as a modification of the proposed action, would accommodate 34,000 SunCatchers and generate 850 MW on a smaller 6,215-acre site. In addition to the proposed project and the preferred alternative, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this final EIS. The other build options are a reduced acreage alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and one that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal land and water conservation funds (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The preferred alternative would change the north boundary of the project footprint to avoid 1,770 acres of habitat for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and rare plants. The south boundary would be modified so that no cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. 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 10-0033D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100303, 1,511 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-07 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave 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/816527023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527020; 14556-100303_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 would be 275 MW, described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require 2,320 acres and the renewable energy would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a two-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers and the additional energy would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line, described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. A BLM-preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), which was developed in this final EIS as a modification of the proposed action, would accommodate 34,000 SunCatchers and generate 850 MW on a smaller 6,215-acre site. In addition to the proposed project and the preferred alternative, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this final EIS. The other build options are a reduced acreage alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and one that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal land and water conservation funds (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The preferred alternative would change the north boundary of the project footprint to avoid 1,770 acres of habitat for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and rare plants. The south boundary would be modified so that no cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. 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 10-0033D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100303, 1,511 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-07 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave 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/816527020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527014; 14556-100303_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 would be 275 MW, described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require 2,320 acres and the renewable energy would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a two-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers and the additional energy would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line, described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. A BLM-preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), which was developed in this final EIS as a modification of the proposed action, would accommodate 34,000 SunCatchers and generate 850 MW on a smaller 6,215-acre site. In addition to the proposed project and the preferred alternative, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this final EIS. The other build options are a reduced acreage alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and one that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal land and water conservation funds (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The preferred alternative would change the north boundary of the project footprint to avoid 1,770 acres of habitat for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and rare plants. The south boundary would be modified so that no cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. 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 10-0033D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100303, 1,511 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-07 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave 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/816527014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527013; 14556-100303_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 would be 275 MW, described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require 2,320 acres and the renewable energy would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a two-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers and the additional energy would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line, described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. A BLM-preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), which was developed in this final EIS as a modification of the proposed action, would accommodate 34,000 SunCatchers and generate 850 MW on a smaller 6,215-acre site. In addition to the proposed project and the preferred alternative, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this final EIS. The other build options are a reduced acreage alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and one that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal land and water conservation funds (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The preferred alternative would change the north boundary of the project footprint to avoid 1,770 acres of habitat for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and rare plants. The south boundary would be modified so that no cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. 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 10-0033D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100303, 1,511 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-07 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave 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/816527013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527010; 14556-100303_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 would be 275 MW, described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require 2,320 acres and the renewable energy would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a two-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers and the additional energy would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line, described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. A BLM-preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), which was developed in this final EIS as a modification of the proposed action, would accommodate 34,000 SunCatchers and generate 850 MW on a smaller 6,215-acre site. In addition to the proposed project and the preferred alternative, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this final EIS. The other build options are a reduced acreage alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and one that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal land and water conservation funds (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The preferred alternative would change the north boundary of the project footprint to avoid 1,770 acres of habitat for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and rare plants. The south boundary would be modified so that no cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. 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 10-0033D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100303, 1,511 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-07 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave 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/816527010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - CALICO SOLAR PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816527004; 14556-100303_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 850 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, California is proposed. Calico Solar, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tessera Solar, is seeking a right-of-way grant for land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a project site located 37 miles east of Barstow, and 115 miles east of Los Angeles. The proposed project also requires BLM approval of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. The Calico Solar Project would involve the construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation, an operation and administration building, a maintenance building, and a substation building. The project would be constructed in two phases: phase I would consist of up to 11,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers per group. Each SunCatcher consists of a solar receiver heat exchanger and a closed-cycle, high-efficiency Solar Stirling Engine specifically designed to convert solar power to rotary power then driving an electrical generator to produce grid-quality electricity. The total net nominal generating capacity of phase 1 would be 275 MW, described as Southern California Edisons (SCE) Early Interconnection Option. Phase I would require 2,320 acres and the renewable energy would be transmitted via the existing 220-kV SCE Lugo to Pisgah transmission line. The Calico Solar Project would be connected to the grid at the SCE Pisgah Substation via a two-mile-long, 230-kV interconnection transmission line. Phase I would require only minor upgrades to the Pisgah Substation and no upgrades to the existing Pisgah to Lugo transmission line. Phase II would expand the Calico Solar Project to a total of 34,000 SunCatchers configured in 1.5-MW solar groups of 60 SunCatchers each, with a total net generating capacity of both phases of 850 MW. Phase II would require 5,910 acres of the project site. The 575-MW Phase II would consist of approximately 23,000 SunCatchers and the additional energy would require new transmission capacity within the grid. This is anticipated to be provided by the proposed 500-kV Pisgah to Lugo transmission line, described as SCEs Full Build-out Option. The construction and operation of Phase II is contingent on the approval and development of transmission line. Groundwater for construction and operation would be obtained from a well located in Cadiz, California, approximately 64 miles southeast of the proposed project site within the Cadiz Valley groundwater basin of the Colorado River Hydrologic Region. The applicant is also currently drilling wells and conducting aquifer testing to further assess groundwater conditions at the project site. A BLM-preferred alternative (Alternative 1a), which was developed in this final EIS as a modification of the proposed action, would accommodate 34,000 SunCatchers and generate 850 MW on a smaller 6,215-acre site. In addition to the proposed project and the preferred alternative, two other build alternatives on the same general site and three No Project/No Action Alternatives are also evaluated in this final EIS. The other build options are a reduced acreage alternative (275 MW, 2,600 acres, 11,000 SunCatchers), and one that would avoid donated lands and lands acquired with federal land and water conservation funds (720 MW, 7,050 acres, 28,800 SunCatchers). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Calico Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA Plan as required regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would contribute to the 20 percent renewable energy target set by Californias governor and legislature, help SCE meet its obligations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The preferred alternative would change the north boundary of the project footprint to avoid 1,770 acres of habitat for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and rare plants. The south boundary would be modified so that no cultural resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project site is known to be occupied by desert tortoise, currently listed as threatened under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Implementation would have significant impacts/effects on a presently unknown subset of approximately 139 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources and could have significant impacts/effects on an unknown number of buried archaeological deposits, many of which may be determined historically significant. Construction and operation would have significant short term and long term adverse impacts on visual resources. 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 10-0033D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100303, 1,511 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-07 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave 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/816527004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALICO+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALICO+SOLAR+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION, YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - ENTERPRISE RANCHERIA GAMING FACILITY AND HOTEL FEE-TO-TRUST ACQUISITION, YUBA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526995; 14554-100301_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer into federal trust of 40 acres of lands for the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe is proposed to allow for the construction and operation of a casino and hotel resort in Yuba County, California. In addition to the fee-to-trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action requests approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between Yuba County Entertainment and the Tribe (also known as Enterprise Rancheria). The proposed site of the resort lies four miles southeast of the community of Olivehurst near the intersection of Forty Mile Road and State Route 65. Under the proposed action, the 40-acre Yuba site would be placed into federal trust and the gaming management contract would be approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. The resulting casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Several food and beverage facilities would be incorporated into the design, including a buffet, casino bars, and two restaurants. The resort would include an eight-story hotel providing 170 rooms, a pool area, an exercise room, and an arcade. Approximately 2,750 parking spaces would be provided to accommodate visitors to the resort, with 600 of the spaces contained in multi-level structures. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative, alternatives providing for a smaller casino, non-gaming development, and a smaller casino on an alternative site. The alternative site, known as the Butte site, is currently held in trust for the Tribe and encompasses 40 acres located 11 miles northeast of the city of Oroville between the middle and south forks of the Feather River in unincorporated Butte County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the casino and hotel resort and related commercial establishments that would spring up around these facilities would vastly improve the economic situation of the Tribe, increasing direct revenues into tribal coffers as well as providing employment for members of the Tribe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Agricultural land and associated wildlife habitat at the site would be displaced. Soils at the site are unstable and would require special engineering measures. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a 100-year floodplain. A roadside ditch associated with the resort could displace 0.72 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Operation of the site would remove 137 acre-feet of groundwater from the regional aquifer annually, though this and withdrawals by other interests would still be far less than the annual recharge of 1,000 acre-feet. Operational emissions of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, particulates, and carbon monoxide could violate short-term emission standards. The level of service on roads accessing the site and associated roads would decline to unacceptable levels at some intersections during peak operation hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0217D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100301, Final EIS--701 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--983 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,109 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--670 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Resorts KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Wastewater 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/816526995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION%2C+YUBA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ENTERPRISE+RANCHERIA+GAMING+FACILITY+AND+HOTEL+FEE-TO-TRUST+ACQUISITION%2C+YUBA+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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526981; 14555-100302_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526976; 14555-100302_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526970; 14555-100302_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526950; 14555-100302_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526940; 14555-100302_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526920; 14555-100302_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526881; 14555-100302_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526881?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526875; 14555-100302_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526854; 14555-100302_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526846; 14555-100302_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526846?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526842; 14555-100302_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526841; 14555-100302_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526837; 14555-100302_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526834; 14555-100302_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526834?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526830; 14555-100302_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526827; 14555-100302_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526821; 14555-100302_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 20] T2 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 816526814; 14555-100302_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/816526814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLOVERDALE RANCHERIA OF POMO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND RESORT CASINO PROJECT, SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 755143351; 14553 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 draft 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. 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: 100300, Draft EIS--497 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs 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/755143351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH FORK CASINO, NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF MONO INDIANS FEE-TO-TRUST AND CASINO/HOTEL PROJECT, CITY OF MADERA, MADERA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 755143137; 14555 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of seven parcels of land, encompassing a total of 305 acres near the city of Madera, Madera County, California, into federal trust is proposed to allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to develop a casino/hotel resort and associated infrastructure. In addition to the trust acquisition for gaming purposes, the proposed action would include approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission of a gaming management contract between SC Madera Management, LLC and the tribe. The tribe currently lacks economic development opportunities due to a lack of funds. The tribe has no sustained revenue stream that could be used for capital investment and to provide assistance to disadvantaged tribal members, who rely heavily on federal and state government social services. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative E), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the 305-acre site of the resort complex would be located in southwest Madera County, just north of the city of Madera and adjacent to State Route 99. The casino and hotel resort would include a main gaming hall, food and beverage services, retail space, banquet/meeting space, administrative space, a pool, and a spa. Fifteen food and beverage outlets would be situated in the complex, including a buffet, six bars, three restaurants, and a five-tenant food court. The resort would include a multi-story hotel offering 200 rooms, a pool area, and a spa. Approximately 4,500 parking spaces would be developed on site, including 2,000 spaces within a multi-level structure. Other action alternatives include a reduced-size casino, non-gaming development, and a reduced-size casino on an alternative site east of the proposed site and approximately three miles west of the community of North Fork. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino resort would improve the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing a revenue source that could be used to strengthen the tribal government; fund a variety of social, housing, governmental, administrative, educational, and health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members; and provide capital for other economic development and investment possibilities. Grading and other land forming measures would improve drainage at the site. Construction activities would employ 2,441 workers, while operational employment would amount to 1,461 workers. Property values of land in the vicinity of the casino/hotel complex would probably increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would displace prime farmland. The resort would be located entirely within a 100-year floodplain, reducing floodplain storage capacity. Groundwater immediately below the site would be utilized, possibly resulting in a significant drawdown of the aquifer and, thereby affecting local wells. Increased vehicular traffic on the local roadways and at the site would increase pollutant levels in the area. Demolition of existing structures could result in the dispersion of asbestos. Discharge of tertiary treated waste to Schmidt and Dry creeks could impact aquatic habitat. Construction activities would displace 8.5 acres of seasonal wetlands. The demand for public services would increase significantly, placing stress on available infrastructure; but this impact would be more than mitigated once the complex is established and revenues become substantial. Site development would have to be preceded by removal or neutralization of several hazardous waste sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0153D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100302, Final EIS--909 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume I)--1,207 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--1,804 pages, Appendices (Volume III)--1,372 pages, Appendices (Volume IV)--1,156 pages, July 30, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Demolition KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Site Planning KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wells 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 KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NORTH+FORK+CASINO%2C+NORTH+FORK+RANCHERIA+OF+MONO+INDIANS+FEE-TO-TRUST+AND+CASINO%2FHOTEL+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+MADERA%2C+MADERA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 88 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133308; 14541-8_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 79 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133303; 14541-8_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 77 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133294; 14541-8_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 76 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133287; 14541-8_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 75 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133275; 14541-8_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 66 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133268; 14541-8_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 65 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133259; 14541-8_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 63 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133224; 14541-8_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 59 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133215; 14541-8_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133215?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 58 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133203; 14541-8_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 57 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133195; 14541-8_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 53 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133189; 14541-8_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 47 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873133178; 14541-8_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 51 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132974; 14541-8_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 50 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132968; 14541-8_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 39 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132954; 14541-8_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 38 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132946; 14541-8_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 37 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132939; 14541-8_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 36 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132928; 14541-8_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 46 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132921; 14541-8_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132918; 14541-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 26 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132913; 14541-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132909; 14541-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 25 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132905; 14541-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 35 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132900; 14541-8_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 24 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132899; 14541-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132898; 14541-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 23 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132885; 14541-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132885?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 34 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132884; 14541-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 22 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132868; 14541-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 33 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132867; 14541-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 21 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132860; 14541-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132860?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132853; 14541-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132847; 14541-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132835; 14541-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132824; 14541-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132795; 14541-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 78 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132526; 14541-8_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 74 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132304; 14541-8_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 73 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132290; 14541-8_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 70 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132283; 14541-8_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 67 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132278; 14541-8_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 62 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132265; 14541-8_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 60 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132256; 14541-8_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 52 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132246; 14541-8_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 82 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131595; 14541-8_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 69 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131582; 14541-8_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 68 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131567; 14541-8_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 64 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131550; 14541-8_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 61 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131536; 14541-8_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 54 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131529; 14541-8_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 94 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131410; 14541-8_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 94 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 32 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131391; 14541-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 31 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131377; 14541-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 30 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131367; 14541-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 49 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131366; 14541-8_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 29 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131356; 14541-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 48 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131353; 14541-8_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 28 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131345; 14541-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 27 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131341; 14541-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 17 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131339; 14541-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 14 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131324; 14541-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 16 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131321; 14541-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 15 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131314; 14541-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131314?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 13 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131309; 14541-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131303; 14541-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131280; 14541-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130865; 14541-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130842; 14541-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 83 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130838; 14541-8_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 56 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130812; 14541-8_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 55 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130783; 14541-8_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 92 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129872; 14541-8_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 92 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 91 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129845; 14541-8_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129845?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 85 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129824; 14541-8_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 81 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129811; 14541-8_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 90 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129809; 14541-8_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 80 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129782; 14541-8_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 89 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129770; 14541-8_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 20 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129702; 14541-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 87 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129683; 14541-8_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 72 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129655; 14541-8_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 86 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129636; 14541-8_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 71 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129618; 14541-8_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 45 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129592; 14541-8_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 84 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129408; 14541-8_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 93 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129142; 14541-8_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 93 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 19 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873128110; 14541-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 18 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873128098; 14541-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 42 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873128073; 14541-8_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 44 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127852; 14541-8_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 43 of 94] T2 - CASCADE LOCKS RESORT AND CASINO PROJECT, CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON, HOOD RIVER COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127844; 14541-8_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The fee-to-trust transfer of 25 acres of land within the city of Cascade Locks, Oregon is proposed to allow the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon to develop a resort and casino. The tribe faces serious difficulties caused by steadily declining tribal revenues, shrinking tribal budgets, and a rapidly growing and youthful tribal population with significant unmet social and economic needs, including health care, housing, education, employment, and job skills training. The tribe's "adjusted governmental needs" unmet by current revenues amount to $26 million per year. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the 25-acre tract, which is part of a 120-acre tract zoned for industrial land uses located at the eastern edge of Cascade Locks, would be enlarged via the leasing by the tribe of 35 acres of contiguous land from the Port of Cascade Locks. Initial plans for the destination resort and casino would provide for a 90,000-square-foot gaming casino, 250-room hotel, meeting and convention facility, spa and fitness center, retail shops, a cultural and interpretive center, child program center, and a variety of dining options. The resort and casino building would be located entirely on the 25-acre fee-to-trust parcel. Parking would be provided for 3,700 vehicles in a three-story garage and in surface lots. To provide adequate access to the resort, the tribe would also construct a new interchange on Interstate 84 (I-84) near the existing Forest Lane overpass of I-84. Once the new casino was operational, the tribe would discontinue operations at its Kah-Nee-Ta Casino on the Warm Springs Reservation. The other two action alternatives under consideration are: 1) the development of a casino on 40 acres of the tribe's trust land east of the city of Hood River in Hood River County and 2) the development of a casino on a 36-acre site within the existing Warm Springs Indian Reservation along US Highway 26. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Financial projections indicate that the Cascade Locks Resort and Casino would allow the tribe to meets its tribal government needs within three years of opening and, in the following years, to provide financial resources to allow existing tribal enterprises to expand and new ventures to be developed. The resort would create over 2,000 jobs in the region. Transportation improvements associated with the resort would contribute to the improvement of the city circulation system by providing direct access to the port authority's industrial park. The tribe would grant the state of Oregon a perpetual conservation easement to the tribe's Hood River trust and fee lands, which lie within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, thereby protecting these lands and the associated scenic, biological, and cultural resources from development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would cause no significant impacts at the resort site as the site is already extensively developed for industrial uses. New road construction would affect a 1,400-foot section of the Historic Columbia River Highway. Construction noise could temporarily disturb bald eagle foraging habitat along the Columbia River shoreline and over adjacent water areas. The resort and associated infrastructure project would degrade visual resources in a scenic area somewhat, with the greatest visual impact resulting from the freeway interchange. Visual impacts would also result from the removal of mature trees in the interchange area. LEGAL MANDATES: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 92-638), and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0152D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 100288, Final EIS (Volume 1)--555 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--504 pages, Appendices (Volume 3)--467 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hotels KW - Industrial Parks KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Property Disposition KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area KW - Oregon KW - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Compliance KW - Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127844?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CASCADE+LOCKS+RESORT+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+CONFEDERATED+TRIBES+OF+THE+WARM+SPRINGS+RESERVATION+OF+OREGON%2C+HOOD+RIVER+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROOSEVELT-VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ROOSEVELT-VANDERBILT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HYDE PARK, NEW YORK. AN - 816526955; 14540-100287_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan describing the resource conditions and visitor experience as they should exist at the Roosevelt-Vanderbilt National Historic Sites over the next 20 years is proposed. Hyde Park, New York, is home to three national historic sites established by separate legislation: the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site; Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site (also known as Val-Kill); and the Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site. The sites are combined into a single administrative unit and attract more than half a million visitors every year. Together the parks include over 1,100 acres of federally owned land along the east bank of the Hudson River, along with two fully furnished mansions, 40 historic buildings, 14 miles of roads and trails, 35 acres of forest plantations set out by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), five historic gardens, nearly 100 acres of open fields, and over 25,000 objects and artifacts. The parks are supported by an annual budget of over $5 million and the work of hundreds of volunteers. Currently, three separate planning documents guide management of the sites. A No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, and two action alternatives were considered in the draft EIS. Action Alternative 1 would perpetuate the general philosophy and direction of existing management plans but would address changed conditions, additions to the parks, and increased knowledge of park resources. Resource management efforts would focus on the landscape and would aim to restore the historic appearance of resources. Forest plantations and natural woodlands would be managed to restore historic character and former farm fields would be returned to their historic extent and maintained as open meadow. The restoration of the FDR home garden, the Eleanor Roosevelt cutting garden, and the Vanderbilt formal gardens would concentrate on core historic areas. More tour options would be offered and educational programs enhanced. Partners and volunteers would provide increased assistance with maintenance and programming. Action Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to make the parks relevant to more audiences by encouraging greater participation in park activities. Contemporary best practices for land management would be employed, historic fields would be reclaimed, and farming reintroduced. Designed landscapes would be rehabilitated and missing features indicated via media. The Hudson River view would be expanded at the Home of FDR, with action taken to preserve the view at Vanderbilt. A wider choice of visitor experiences would be offered including forestry and farming demonstrations, a place-based learning center, changing exhibits and forums, and recreational use of trails. Increased partner participation would help maintain resources, run programs, and generate revenue. This abbreviated final EIS includes public comments and responses and copies of agency letters. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of a general plan would define the purpose and direction for the historic sites and provide for coordinated management in an environment of limited federal funding. Activities would enhance visitor experience by increasing understanding of the historic condition and functioning of the properties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new segments of the trail system would impact the cultural landscape and could impact archeological resources. Some modification to historic interiors could be required and adaptive re-use of certain estate outbuildings could require new parking areas, pathways, or other non-historic elements. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0083D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100287, 32 pages, July 28, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-33 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site KW - New York KW - Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site 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/816526955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROOSEVELT-VANDERBILT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITES+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HYDE+PARK%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=ROOSEVELT-VANDERBILT+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITES+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HYDE+PARK%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, Hyde Park, New York; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - VEGETATION TREATMENTS USING HERBICIDES ON BLM LANDS IN OREGON. AN - 873133795; 14531-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: An increase in the number of herbicides available for use on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Oregon, and expansion of their use beyond the noxious weed management program are proposed. Noxious weeds are spreading on BLM lands at the rate of 144,000 acres per year and the existing BLM vegetation management program is unable to effectively address the rate of spread or treat all species. New herbicides are available that would better control weeds, better meet other non-commodity vegetation management objectives, and have fewer adverse effects on humans and the environment. This EIS tiers to the June 2007 Final Programmatic EIS and the September 29, 2007 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands in 17 Western States. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2) which would perpetuate the existing vegetation management program, are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 3 would add eight herbicides west and nine herbicides east of the Cascades, to the four herbicides already being used to control noxious weeds. Herbicide use would be expanded to include the treatment of other invasive plants, and the treatment of native plants to control invasive pests and diseases. Alternative 4, which is the proposed action and the preferred alternative, would add nine and 12 herbicides. In addition to the uses described in Alternative 3, native vegetation control would be used within rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites, and to conduct wildlife habitat improvement for rare species. Alternative 5 would add 14 herbicides statewide to the four already being used, and expand herbicide use to include any vegetation management objective except livestock forage and timber production. An alternative of No Herbicide Use (Alternative 1) is also included for comparison purposes. Herbicide use would increase from 16,700 acres per year under the No Action Alternative to 45,000 acres per year under the proposed action. Because newer, more target-specific herbicides would be used, the actual pounds of herbicide applied would increase less than 50 percent. All but 3,000 acres of the increase would be east of the Cascades, and 11,000 acres of the increase is estimated to be imazapic applications on invasive annual grasses including medusahead and cheatgrass, usually to help with restoration of native plants following wildfires or prescribed burns. Nine thousand acres of the increase would be to treat native vegetation causing safety and maintenance issues on rights-of-way, administrative sites, or recreation sites. Herbicides would also be available to treat native plants to control exotic pests and diseases in State-designated quarantine areas, like the area currently designated for Sudden Oak Death control in southwestern Oregon. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would reduce noxious weed spread to 6 percent per year and result in 2.2 million fewer infested acres in 15 years when compared to the No Action Alternative. Herbicide use would reduce native vegetation control costs in rights-of-way, administrative sites, and recreation sites by $1 million per year. Alternative 4 would also provide herbicides for about 5,700 acres of habitat improvement for sensitive and federally listed species, mostly in sagebrush habitat east of the Cascades. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Elements of the alternatives would have potential for adverse resource and human health effects with bromacil, diuron, and tebuthiuron having the highest risk. Standard operating procedures and mitigation measures would minimize herbicide risks to negligible levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-629), Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7702), and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0372D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100278, Final EIS (Volume 1) and Appendices (Volume 2)--852 pages and CD-ROM, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-FES-10-23 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Health Hazards KW - Herbicides KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Safety KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Carlson-Foley Act of 1968, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Plant Protection Act of 2000, Compliance KW - Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+OREGON.&rft.title=VEGETATION+TREATMENTS+USING+HERBICIDES+ON+BLM+LANDS+IN+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 873132837; 14530-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new 30,000-horsepower compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receiver facilities; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals, and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, five major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The proposed project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 71.5 percent of the route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0031D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100277, 813 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235F KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 873132797; 14530-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new 30,000-horsepower compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receiver facilities; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals, and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, five major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The proposed project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 71.5 percent of the route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0031D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100277, 813 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235F KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 873132791; 14530-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new 30,000-horsepower compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receiver facilities; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals, and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, five major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The proposed project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 71.5 percent of the route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0031D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100277, 813 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235F KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 873132780; 14530-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new 30,000-horsepower compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receiver facilities; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals, and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, five major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The proposed project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 71.5 percent of the route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0031D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100277, 813 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235F KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 873132775; 14530-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new 30,000-horsepower compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receiver facilities; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals, and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, five major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The proposed project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 71.5 percent of the route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0031D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100277, 813 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235F KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - APEX EXPANSION PROJECT, NEVADA, UTAH, WYOMING. AN - 873132767; 14530-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project, in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming are proposed. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day of natural gas on Kern Rivers existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. The existing system transports about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas consumed in the Las Vegas area. The proposed project facilities would include 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following major associated facilities and upgrades: a new 30,000-horsepower compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; installation of additional compression at the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; installation of additional compression at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; three pig launchers and two pig receiver facilities; and six new mainline valves. Key issues identified during scoping, agency consultations, and evaluation include: geologic hazards, paleontological resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest (UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any water withdrawals, and discharges would be in accordance with applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. In addition to the proposed project, this final EIS evaluates No Action and Postponed Action alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, five major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Expansion of the Kern River Gas Transmission System would enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and provide transportation service for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The proposed project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 71.5 percent of the route. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be active. The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies, 2,027 feet of wetlands, and would impact Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas fir forest, and riparian areas. Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Known habitat for greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog would be crossed, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Paleontological resources occur at seven sites along the proposed pipeline and the Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11514, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0031D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100277, 813 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0235F KW - Erosion Control KW - Industrial Water KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Executive Order 11514, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=APEX+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA%2C+UTAH%2C+WYOMING.&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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873130755; 14528-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of six tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. All are operating surface coal mines in the southern Powder River Basin near the town of Wright. Ark Land Company, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company, and BTU Western Resources, Inc. filed four applications with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease the six tracts which would extend the life of the existing mines. These maintenance coal tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field Lease by Application (LBA), the South Hilight Field LBA, the West Hilight Field LBA, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, the North Porcupine LBA, and the South Porcupine LBA and comprise 18,022 acres containing 2.6 billion tons of federal coal. Concerns related to leasing coal and its subsequent development identified during analyses and scoping include: impacts to groundwater, air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, socioeconomics, loss of livestock grazing areas, conflicts with oil and gas development, cumulative impacts of ongoing surface mining, greenhouse gas emissions; ozone, and climate change. In addition to the proposed action, three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the LBA tracts would not be leased, but existing leases at the adjacent mines would be developed according to existing approved mining plans. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, each of the six LBA tracts would be reconfigured by BLM in order to provide more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest, and reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal would be bypassed in the future. Only the West Hilight Field LBA tract would be reconfigured under Alternative 3. In the event a lease is issued for an LBA tract, stipulations would be attached stating that no mining activity can be conducted in portions of the lease within public road or railroad rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones unless authorized local authorities determine that the roads could be abandoned or relocated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 could add up to 7.8 years to the remaining life of the Black Thunder mine, up to 28.6 years to the remaining life of the Jacobs Ranch mine, and up to 8.2 years to the remaining life of the North Antelope Rochelle mine depending on potential road relocations and recovery of underlying coal. Up to 155 new employees could be added at the Jacobs Ranch mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Further mineral development would continue to impact habitat for sage-grouse and other birds. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden above the coal within the Wright area LBA tracts. Access to 12,481 acres of federal grazing leases on Thunder Basin National Grassland surface would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations on five LBA tracts. Public exposure to emissions from surface mining operations could occur along roads and highways that pass through the areas of operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), 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 09-0241D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100275, Volume 1---719 pages, Volume 2 and Appendices---613 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-10/022+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Thunder Basin National Grassland KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+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, Casper, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873130722; 14528-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of six tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. All are operating surface coal mines in the southern Powder River Basin near the town of Wright. Ark Land Company, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company, and BTU Western Resources, Inc. filed four applications with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease the six tracts which would extend the life of the existing mines. These maintenance coal tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field Lease by Application (LBA), the South Hilight Field LBA, the West Hilight Field LBA, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, the North Porcupine LBA, and the South Porcupine LBA and comprise 18,022 acres containing 2.6 billion tons of federal coal. Concerns related to leasing coal and its subsequent development identified during analyses and scoping include: impacts to groundwater, air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, socioeconomics, loss of livestock grazing areas, conflicts with oil and gas development, cumulative impacts of ongoing surface mining, greenhouse gas emissions; ozone, and climate change. In addition to the proposed action, three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the LBA tracts would not be leased, but existing leases at the adjacent mines would be developed according to existing approved mining plans. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, each of the six LBA tracts would be reconfigured by BLM in order to provide more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest, and reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal would be bypassed in the future. Only the West Hilight Field LBA tract would be reconfigured under Alternative 3. In the event a lease is issued for an LBA tract, stipulations would be attached stating that no mining activity can be conducted in portions of the lease within public road or railroad rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones unless authorized local authorities determine that the roads could be abandoned or relocated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 could add up to 7.8 years to the remaining life of the Black Thunder mine, up to 28.6 years to the remaining life of the Jacobs Ranch mine, and up to 8.2 years to the remaining life of the North Antelope Rochelle mine depending on potential road relocations and recovery of underlying coal. Up to 155 new employees could be added at the Jacobs Ranch mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Further mineral development would continue to impact habitat for sage-grouse and other birds. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden above the coal within the Wright area LBA tracts. Access to 12,481 acres of federal grazing leases on Thunder Basin National Grassland surface would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations on five LBA tracts. Public exposure to emissions from surface mining operations could occur along roads and highways that pass through the areas of operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), 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 09-0241D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100275, Volume 1---719 pages, Volume 2 and Appendices---613 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-10/022+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Thunder Basin National Grassland KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+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, Casper, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WRIGHT AREA COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS, CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 755143348; 14528 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing of six tracts of federal coal reserves adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacobs Ranch, and North Antelope Rochelle mines in Campbell County, Wyoming is proposed. All are operating surface coal mines in the southern Powder River Basin near the town of Wright. Ark Land Company, Jacobs Ranch Coal Company, and BTU Western Resources, Inc. filed four applications with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease the six tracts which would extend the life of the existing mines. These maintenance coal tracts are referred to as the North Hilight Field Lease by Application (LBA), the South Hilight Field LBA, the West Hilight Field LBA, the West Jacobs Ranch LBA, the North Porcupine LBA, and the South Porcupine LBA and comprise 18,022 acres containing 2.6 billion tons of federal coal. Concerns related to leasing coal and its subsequent development identified during analyses and scoping include: impacts to groundwater, air quality, wildlife, cultural resources, socioeconomics, loss of livestock grazing areas, conflicts with oil and gas development, cumulative impacts of ongoing surface mining, greenhouse gas emissions; ozone, and climate change. In addition to the proposed action, three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the LBA tracts would not be leased, but existing leases at the adjacent mines would be developed according to existing approved mining plans. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, each of the six LBA tracts would be reconfigured by BLM in order to provide more efficient recovery of the federal coal, increase competitive interest, and reduce the potential that some of the remaining unleased federal coal would be bypassed in the future. Only the West Hilight Field LBA tract would be reconfigured under Alternative 3. In the event a lease is issued for an LBA tract, stipulations would be attached stating that no mining activity can be conducted in portions of the lease within public road or railroad rights-of-way and adjacent buffer zones unless authorized local authorities determine that the roads could be abandoned or relocated. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative 2 could add up to 7.8 years to the remaining life of the Black Thunder mine, up to 28.6 years to the remaining life of the Jacobs Ranch mine, and up to 8.2 years to the remaining life of the North Antelope Rochelle mine depending on potential road relocations and recovery of underlying coal. Up to 155 new employees could be added at the Jacobs Ranch mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Further mineral development would continue to impact habitat for sage-grouse and other birds. Mining would disturb the coal aquifer and the aquifers in the overburden above the coal within the Wright area LBA tracts. Access to 12,481 acres of federal grazing leases on Thunder Basin National Grassland surface would be suspended during mining and reclamation operations on five LBA tracts. Public exposure to emissions from surface mining operations could occur along roads and highways that pass through the areas of operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.), 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 09-0241D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100275, Volume 1---719 pages, Volume 2 and Appendices---613 pages, July 22, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-10/022+1320 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Emissions KW - Employment KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Railroads KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Thunder Basin National Grassland KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755143348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WRIGHT+AREA+COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS%2C+CAMPBELL+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, Casper, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133173; 14526-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873133173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132789; 14526-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873132789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131308; 14526-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873131308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131304; 14526-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873131304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131299; 14526-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873131299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131282; 14526-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873131282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131267; 14526-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873131267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131253; 14526-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873131253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129808; 14526-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873129808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129560; 14526-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873129560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129383; 14526-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/873129383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL VALLEY SOLAR PROJECT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STIRLING ENERGY SYSTEMS SOLAR TWO PROJECT), CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 755143340; 14526 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a concentrated solar electrical generating facility capable of generating 750 megawatts (MW) of renewable power on a site approximately 100 miles east of San Diego, 14 miles west of El Centro, and 4 miles east of Ocotillo Hills, Imperial County, California is proposed. Development of the Imperial Valley Solar Project (formerly called the SES Solar Two Project) would require a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) right-of-way (ROW) grant and a project-specific California Desert Conservation Plan (CDCA) amendment. The project would be located on 6,500 acres of federal land managed by the BLM and 360 acres of privately owned land and would be constructed in two phases. Phase I would consist of up to 12,000 SunCatchers with a nominal generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of approximately 18,000 SunCatchers, expanding the project to 30,000 SunCatchers, with a total generating capacity of 750 MW. The SunCatcher is a 25-kilowatt solar dish that is designed to automatically track the sun and collect and focus solar energy onto a power conversion unit (PCU), which generates electricity. The system consists of a 38-foot-high by 40-foot-wide solar concentrator in a dish structure that supports an array of curved glass mirror facets. These mirrors collect and concentrate solar energy onto the solar receiver of the PCU. The proposed project would also include an electrical transmission line, water supply pipeline, and a site access road. A new 230-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed in the center of the project site and would be connected to the existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Imperial Valley Substation via a 10.3 mile, double-circuit, 230-kV transmission line. Approximately 7.56 miles of the new line would be constructed offsite. Other than this interconnection transmission line, no new transmission lines or off-site substations would be required for the 300-MW Phase 1 construction. The full Phase II expansion of the project, and delivery of the additional renewable power to the San Diego regional load center, would require the construction of the 500-kV Sunrise Powerlink transmission line proposed by SDG&E. An off-site 6-inch diameter water supply pipeline would be constructed a distance of approximately 3.4 miles from the Westside Main Canal to the project boundary. The water pipeline would be routed in the Union Pacific Railroad ROW, or adjacent to this ROW on federal and private lands. A site access road would be constructed from Dunaway Road to the eastern boundary of the project site, generally following an existing road. This final EIS also evaluates a BLM-preferred 709-MW alternative, three other build alternatives on the same general site, and three No Project/No Action alternatives. The BLM-preferred alternative would reduce the total number of SunCatchers to 28,360 to avoid specific drainages on the project site. The three other build alternatives are a 300-MW alternative and two alternatives that would reduce effects to waters of the United States (Drainage Avoidance Alternatives 1 and 2). The No Project/No Action Alternatives all consider not approving the Imperial Valley Solar Project and either amending or not amending the CDCA regarding land use designations for the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would provide clean, renewable, solar-powered electricity, contribute to the 20 percent renewables target set by California's governor and legislature, and assist SDG&E in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project construction and operation would contribute to existing violations of ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter and would require mitigation. Transmission line construction would impact 92.8 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub, which provides habitat for flat-tailed horned lizard. Implementation would have significant effects on a presently unknown subset of 328 known prehistoric and historical surface archaeological resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0019D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100272, Final EIS (Volume 1)--1,003 pages, Appendices (Volume 2)--1,831 pages, July 20, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 10-29 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Drainage KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Industrial Water KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - California KW - Imperial Valley KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization 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/755143340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+VALLEY+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+%28FORMERLY+KNOWN+AS+STIRLING+ENERGY+SYSTEMS+SOLAR+TWO+PROJECT%29%2C+CALIFORNIA+DESERT+CONSERVATION+AREA+PLAN+AMENDMENT%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 - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 22 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132862; 14527-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 21 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132849; 14527-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 12 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132828; 14527-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 11 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132823; 14527-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 10 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132811; 14527-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 9 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132801; 14527-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 20 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132779; 14527-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873132744; 14527-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131252; 14527-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131249; 14527-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 19 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131247; 14527-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 18 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131243; 14527-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131242; 14527-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 17 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131238; 14527-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131238?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 16 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131234; 14527-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131234?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131232; 14527-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 15 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131225; 14527-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 14 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131221; 14527-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 13 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131208; 14527-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873131194; 14527-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 8 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873128087; 14527-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 22] T2 - WEST TAVAPUTS PLATEAU NATURAL GAS FULL FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CARBON AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 873128079; 14527-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of federally leased natural gas resources under the West Tavaputs Plateau in Carbon and Duchesne counties of eastern Utah is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering this proposal by the Bill Barrett Corporation (BBC) and other operators to provide for the extraction and recovery of natural gas from federal oil and gas leases under the planning area held by BBC and other operators in accordance with its multiple-use mandate and the goals and objectives of the President's National Energy Plan. This final EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative B). Under the proposed action (Alternative A), the project would involve the drilling of 807 natural gas wells at 538 locations within a 137,930-acre area. Surface ownership in the project area is approximately 87 percent federal, eight percent state, and five percent private. Mineral estate ownership closely parallels surface ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would provide for the development of 807 gas wells from 494 well pads over a nine-year period. The alternative would allow year-round drilling in the project area with no rig limitations. The BLM would require implementation of special protective measures for wildlife and high country watersheds in the project area as well as transportation impact reduction measures. In addition, restrictions would be imposed to reduce development impacts within wilderness study areas, canyon bottoms, and the Desolation Canyon National Historic Landmark. Annual overall surface disturbance and total unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed at any given time would reduce impacts to natural resources; BBC and other operators would be limited to 540 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 2,310 acres. To accommodate these surface disturbance thresholds, the operators would be required to initiate interim reclamation measures as soon after development as practicable. In addition, the operators would be required to cooperate to develop visitor interpretation/enhancement sites to improve the recreational experience of Nine Mile Canyon. During preparation of the final EIS, BBC submitted a contracted development plan (CDP) which falls within the range of original alternatives. The Record of Decision documents the approval of the CDP which would involve development of 626 natural gas wells from 120 well pads over a four to seven year period. Operators would be limited to 250 acres of surface disturbance per year and a total ongoing unreclaimed surface disturbance of 1,250 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the CDP will provide for natural gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts on key resources including cultural resources in Nine Mile Canyon, sensitive landscapes around Desolation Canyon, wildlife resources in the Book Cliffs, and air quality in the Uinta Basin and southeastern Utah. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term ground disturbance would occur across 1,603 acres and long-term disturbance across 685 acres. Project-related water withdrawal could degrade natural values provided by the affected floodplains. Year-round drilling could impact elk, mule deer, and sage-grouse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986 (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 08-0024D, Volume 32, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100273, Final EIS (Volume I)--535 pages, Final EIS (Volume II)--424 pages, Final EIS (Volume III)--192 pages, Record of Decision--370 pages and maps, July 14, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-UT-070-05-055 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Price Resource Management Area KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Project Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1986, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=WEST+TAVAPUTS+PLATEAU+NATURAL+GAS+FULL+FIELD+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+CARBON+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-09-14 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 14, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131474; 14452-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131465; 14452-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131458; 14452-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131302; 14452-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131302?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131295; 14452-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131286; 14452-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131281; 14452-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131278; 14452-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131271; 14452-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131270; 14452-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131263; 14452-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131255; 14452-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873131241; 14452-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129500; 14452-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129467; 14452-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129448; 14452-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129356; 14452-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129330; 14452-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129262; 14452-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129227; 14452-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129069; 14452-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129049; 14452-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 873129021; 14452-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OVER THE RIVER PROJECT, FREMONT AND CHAFFEE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 754907729; 14452 AB - PURPOSE: The installation of a temporary work of art consisting of fabric panels suspended horizontally over approximately 5.9 miles of a 42.4-mile stretch of the Arkansas River between Canon City and Salida, Colorado is proposed. The work of art, known as Over the River, would require the use of federal, private and state lands adjacent to the river. Over The River Corporation has applied for a land use authorization for a three-year period to install, exhibit, and remove the work of art, conceived by the artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, on public lands in western Fremont County and the southeast portion of Chafee County. The Arkansas River is situated in a canyon setting surrounded by hilly, steep terrain. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) and the Union Pacific Railroad parallel the river through the entire project area. Access to and through the project area is limited to US 50, which is the primary access to all recreation sites and residential areas within the Arkansas River corridor and serves as a major thoroughfare for east-west travel in central Colorado. Panel placement, transportation, visitor management, and temporal considerations formed the basis for the alternatives development process. For each of these four project components, a list of reasonable elements was developed and individual alternatives were assembled by combining one element of each component into an alternative package. Six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1a), Over the River would consist of 5.9 miles of fabric panels suspended above the Arkansas River in eight areas. The panels would be supported by a system of cables and anchors. Installation would be scheduled to occur over a 28-month period with an estimated 20 to 30 people working in the project corridor. The exhibit would have a two-week display and viewing period with no admission fees. Visitors would view the art by raft, kayak, or other watercraft from the river, or by automobile from the highway. Pedestrian access to the exhibit would be limited to the Parkdale Viewing Center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An informed decision on land use authorization would determine if the work of art can be accommodated on public land while maintaining resource objectives for the Arkansas Canyonlands Area of Critical Environmental Concern. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities associated with panel installation, including rail traffic, heavy equipment, and large rock drills, would disturb six acres spread over 5.9 miles of river. An additional 84 acres would be disturbed at staging areas and visitor sites. The presence of cable wires and fabric panels spanning the river, an expected increase in visitation, and the removal process would impact bighorn sheep, mule deer, and other wildlife species. JF - EPA number: 100260, Volume 1--415 pages, Volume 2--381 pages, Volume 3--491 pages, Volume 4--101 maps, July 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Agency number: DES 10-37 KW - Drilling KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Railroads KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Arkansas River KW - Colorado UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=OVER+THE+RIVER+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+CHAFFEE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Canon City, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 8 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132345; 14450-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 7 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132337; 14450-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 6 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873132325; 14450-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 33 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131746; 14450-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 32 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131737; 14450-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 31 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131727; 14450-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 30 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131717; 14450-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 29 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131706; 14450-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 23 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131696; 14450-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 22 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131686; 14450-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 21 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131668; 14450-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 1 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131663; 14450-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 34 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131538; 14450-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 16 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131205; 14450-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131205?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 15 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131195; 14450-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 14 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131183; 14450-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 13 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131176; 14450-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 18 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131093; 14450-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 17 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131084; 14450-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 5 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873131075; 14450-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 4 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130670; 14450-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 3 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130660; 14450-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 2 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873130646; 14450-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 28 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129903; 14450-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 27 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129892; 14450-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 26 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129879; 14450-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 25 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873129867; 14450-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 20 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127318; 14450-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 19 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127315; 14450-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 12 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127308; 14450-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 11 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127305; 14450-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 10 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127295; 14450-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 9 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873127289; 14450-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. [Part 24 of 34] T2 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 873126949; 14450-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NORTH STEENS 230-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 754907119; 14450 AB - PURPOSE: Authorization of a 150-foot right-of-way (ROW) for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a new double-circuit 230-kilovolt (kV) overhead electric transmission line and associated facilities in Harney County, Oregon is proposed. The North Steens Transmission Line Project would transport electrical power generated at the Echanis Wind Energy Project near Diamond, Oregon to the existing electrical transmission grid operated by Harney Electric Cooperative (HEC). The 29-mile transmission line would cross nine miles of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1.3 miles of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and 19 miles of private lands. Development of the Echanis Wind Energy Project, a 104-megawatt wind energy facility that would be constructed on a 10,500-acre privately owned tract by Columbia Energy Partners, LLC, is dependent upon approval of the ROW. During Phase I of transmission line development, the first circuit would be designed and constructed to transmit 230-kV, but it would only initially be energized and operated at 115-kV for the Echanis Project. A second circuit would be installed when additional capacity is required to transmit the power generated by the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects. Phase I construction would include installation of the new poles along with foundations and access roads. Phase II would only require stringing of three more conductors on the previously erected poles. The 115-kV line could be re-energized to 230-kV operation (Phase III) to transmit power if more than one or two of the West Ridge, East Ridge, or Riddle Mountain Projects is constructed. Implementation of Phases II and III would also require upgrades of HECs existing transmission lines from 115-kV to 230-kV capacity and operation. For the Echanis Project, each turbine would have a 3-bladed up-wind rotor connected to a nacelle that houses a generator, gearing, and internal controls. Each nacelle would be mounted on steel tubular towers, varying in height from 213 to 263 feet tall. Each tower would be anchored to a steel and concrete foundation. The towers, including the rotor blades would be approximately 415 feet tall. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B (West Route), which is the proposed action, includes two minor route options (South Diamond Lane Route Option and Hog Wallow Route Option) at the western end. Under Alternative C (North Route), the 230-kV transmission line would begin at a new substation located on the Echanis Wind Energy Project site and end at a new interconnection station constructed adjacent to the existing HEC 115-kV transmission line near Crane, Oregon. The transmission line would be 50 miles long, with 33.7 miles crossing private land, 12.1 miles crossing land administered by the BLM, and approximately 0.2 mile crossing state land. The transmission line and ancillary facilities are anticipated to be constructed in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would improve the ability to distribute available renewable energy as demand continues to grow for electric power from clean sources, reduce constraints in existing power generation and transmission infrastructure, increase transmission capacity and improve system reliability and flexibility, and allow for cost-effective electric transmission and economical power sales and transfers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Echanis Project would cross nine water bodies and the proposed transmission line would cross four perennial streams, five intermittent streams, and two intermittent canals. The Echanis Project would result in the conversion of over 56 acres of sagebrush habitat and 20 acres of juniper woodlands. Road construction and improvements would result in the additional loss of over 53 acres of sagebrush habitat and 21 acres of juniper woodland. Alternative B would result in loss of 30.9 acres of habitat, including 12 acres of sagebrush habitat, 9.3 acres of grasslands, 6.4 acres of juniper woodlands, 2.4 acres of agricultural lands, 0.7 acre of wetlands, and 0.1 acre of developed lands. Annual wildlife fatalities could range from 24 to 690 birds and 28 to 235 bats. Visual quality for recreational users would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100258, 889 pages, July 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM-OR-B060-2010-0035-EIS KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Malheur National Wildlife Refuge KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754907119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=NORTH+STEENS+230-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 29 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131499; 14449-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 28 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131488; 14449-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 27 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131362; 14449-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 26 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131351; 14449-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 32 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131348; 14449-7_0032 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 19 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131343; 14449-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 25 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131342; 14449-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 18 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131336; 14449-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131334; 14449-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 17 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131333; 14449-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 16 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131331; 14449-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 15 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131323; 14449-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131320; 14449-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131313; 14449-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 14 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873131285; 14449-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873131285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 56 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130952; 14449-7_0056 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 55 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130936; 14449-7_0055 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 54 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130923; 14449-7_0054 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 53 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130909; 14449-7_0053 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 52 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130894; 14449-7_0052 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 51 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130886; 14449-7_0051 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 50 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130876; 14449-7_0050 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 49 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130866; 14449-7_0049 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130866?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 41 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130849; 14449-7_0041 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 40 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130840; 14449-7_0040 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 39 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130828; 14449-7_0039 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 33 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130811; 14449-7_0033 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 58 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130465; 14449-7_0058 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 57 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130448; 14449-7_0057 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 37 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130432; 14449-7_0037 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 36 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873130421; 14449-7_0036 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873130421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 47 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129665; 14449-7_0047 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 35 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129643; 14449-7_0035 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 34 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129617; 14449-7_0034 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 10 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129588; 14449-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 9 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129564; 14449-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 8 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129546; 14449-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 24 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129538; 14449-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 7 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129514; 14449-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 23 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129511; 14449-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 22 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129489; 14449-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 21 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129451; 14449-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 20 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129414; 14449-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 6 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129355; 14449-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 46 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129331; 14449-7_0046 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129325; 14449-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 45 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129295; 14449-7_0045 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129285; 14449-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 44 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129269; 14449-7_0044 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 43 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129231; 14449-7_0043 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 42 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873129207; 14449-7_0042 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873129207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 31 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873128903; 14449-7_0031 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873128903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 30 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873127899; 14449-7_0030 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873127899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 13 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873127850; 14449-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873127850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 12 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873127843; 14449-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873127843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 11 of 58] T2 - NATIONAL MALL PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 873127839; 14449-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive management plan for the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is proposed. The National Mall stretches west from the U.S. Capitol to the Potomac River, and north from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial to Constitution Avenue, and is the home to the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson memorials, and numerous other memorials that commemorate great Americans and significant events in the nation's history. The National Mall covers approximately 684 acres, but in 2008 it received 22.3 million visits. Each year the National Park Service receives over 6,000 applications for public gathering permits, resulting in about 3,000 events. The wear and tear of concentrated activity affects the landscape and visitor experiences and facilities can be overwhelmed with use. Vegetation cannot easily recover, and lawns may be worn to the ground and soils heavily compacted, which in turn adversely affects the vigor of trees and other vegetation. Many walks are not wide enough for current levels of use, and adjacent areas may be damaged when use spills off walks or when people choose a more direct route. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current management regime, are presented in this final EIS. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would be preserved and protected, and citizens would continue to be able to express their First Amendment rights on the National Mall. Alternatives A, B, and C would each focus on one primary aspect of the parks purpose and significance. Under Alternative A, management would focus on the historic landscape with its memorials and planned vistas. Alternative B would focus on creating a welcoming national civic space for public gatherings, events, and high-use levels. Under Alternative C, urban recreation and use plus a sustainable urban ecology would be emphasized. The preferred alternative would combine ideas from the other alternatives considered. Improvements on The Mall would include: restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial at Union Square; improvement and protection of lawns and elm trees; replacement of compacted soils with engineered soils; a paved welcome plaza at 12th Street and Jefferson Drive SW including visitor contact station, high-capacity restrooms, and orientation maps; and a coordinated paving plan. Additional improvements to the Washington Monument grounds and West Potomac Park would include multipurpose facilities, utility infrastructure, walkways and bicycle trails, seating, new recreation equipment rental facilities, rebuilt seawalls around the Tidal Basin, and redesigned parking areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A long-term management plan would restore the national mall so that it may continue to symbolize the ideas and greatness envisioned for the country. The plan would establish a sense of place and an overall identity for the National Mall, creating a coherent pedestrian environment that would complement and balance the natural environment, formal and informal features, and national commemorative works. Venues and amenities for participants in demonstrations would be improved under the preferred alternative and alternatives B and C. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continuing existing conditions under the No Action Alternative would generally result in the greatest level of adverse impacts on cultural resources, natural resources, national celebrations and special events, access and circulation, the visitor experience, and park operations. Continued impacts on soils and vegetation could become unacceptable as a result of long-term, major, adverse impacts on the American elm trees on the Mall. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0080D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100257, Volume 1--658 pages and maps, Volume 2: Comments and Responses--219 pages, July 7, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 10-25 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - District of Columbia KW - National Mall and Memorial Parks 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/873127839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+MALL+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+MALL+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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 7, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 74 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132280; 14446-4_0074 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 53 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131185; 14446-4_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 52 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131172; 14446-4_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131140; 14446-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131130; 14446-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131115; 14446-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131115?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131079; 14446-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131057; 14446-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131037; 14446-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131023; 14446-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 72 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131016; 14446-4_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131006; 14446-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 54 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130916; 14446-4_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130551; 14446-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130488; 14446-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129741; 14446-4_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129663; 14446-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129627; 14446-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129597; 14446-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 68 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129596; 14446-4_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 70 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129582; 14446-4_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129561; 14446-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129513; 14446-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129428; 14446-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129390; 14446-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=Development+of+a+Socio-Economic-Status+Index+Using+United+States+Census+Data.&rft.au=Grosset%2C+Jane+M.%3BHawk%2C+Thomas+R.&rft.aulast=Grosset&rft.aufirst=Jane&rft.date=1986-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 50 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128969; 14446-4_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 49 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128943; 14446-4_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128940; 14446-4_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 69 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128937; 14446-4_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128929; 14446-4_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 57 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128920; 14446-4_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128915; 14446-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 55 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128875; 14446-4_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 63 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128868; 14446-4_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 60 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128827; 14446-4_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 64 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128803; 14446-4_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128781; 14446-4_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 61 of 75] T2 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128780; 14446-4_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 816526983; 14447-100255_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan 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 Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres of the Complex 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 General Management Plan was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues now facing park management for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft 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 gateway to millions of acres of wilderness, 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 North Cascades 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 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 work to maintain the character and experience on 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 front country zone. Under Alternative C, management and education efforts would focus on broader ecosystem preservation and enhancement. Visitor experiences would be linked to solitude, tranquility, natural soundscapes, and scenery. There would be no net increase in miles of trail in Ross Lake NRA, some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness would be restricted, and seaplanes would not be allowed to land on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base. A wide variety of recreational activities would be allowed, and there would be fewer restrictions on recreational activities than under the other action alternatives. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the front country zone. The selected plan would guide decision-making by current and future management teams during the next 15 to 20 years. 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. Potential expansion, improvements, and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have beneficial impacts to 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). JF - EPA number: 100255, Volume I--238 pages, Volume II--306 pages, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - 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/816526983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 816526980; 14447-100255_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan 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 Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres of the Complex 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 General Management Plan was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues now facing park management for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft 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 gateway to millions of acres of wilderness, 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 North Cascades 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 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 work to maintain the character and experience on 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 front country zone. Under Alternative C, management and education efforts would focus on broader ecosystem preservation and enhancement. Visitor experiences would be linked to solitude, tranquility, natural soundscapes, and scenery. There would be no net increase in miles of trail in Ross Lake NRA, some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness would be restricted, and seaplanes would not be allowed to land on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base. A wide variety of recreational activities would be allowed, and there would be fewer restrictions on recreational activities than under the other action alternatives. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the front country zone. The selected plan would guide decision-making by current and future management teams during the next 15 to 20 years. 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. Potential expansion, improvements, and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have beneficial impacts to 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). JF - EPA number: 100255, Volume I--238 pages, Volume II--306 pages, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - 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/816526980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 816526886; 14447-100255_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan 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 Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres of the Complex 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 General Management Plan was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues now facing park management for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft 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 gateway to millions of acres of wilderness, 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 North Cascades 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 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 work to maintain the character and experience on 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 front country zone. Under Alternative C, management and education efforts would focus on broader ecosystem preservation and enhancement. Visitor experiences would be linked to solitude, tranquility, natural soundscapes, and scenery. There would be no net increase in miles of trail in Ross Lake NRA, some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness would be restricted, and seaplanes would not be allowed to land on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base. A wide variety of recreational activities would be allowed, and there would be fewer restrictions on recreational activities than under the other action alternatives. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the front country zone. The selected plan would guide decision-making by current and future management teams during the next 15 to 20 years. 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. Potential expansion, improvements, and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have beneficial impacts to 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). JF - EPA number: 100255, Volume I--238 pages, Volume II--306 pages, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - 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/816526886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 816526882; 14447-100255_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan 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 Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres of the Complex 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 General Management Plan was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues now facing park management for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft 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 gateway to millions of acres of wilderness, 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 North Cascades 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 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 work to maintain the character and experience on 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 front country zone. Under Alternative C, management and education efforts would focus on broader ecosystem preservation and enhancement. Visitor experiences would be linked to solitude, tranquility, natural soundscapes, and scenery. There would be no net increase in miles of trail in Ross Lake NRA, some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness would be restricted, and seaplanes would not be allowed to land on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base. A wide variety of recreational activities would be allowed, and there would be fewer restrictions on recreational activities than under the other action alternatives. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the front country zone. The selected plan would guide decision-making by current and future management teams during the next 15 to 20 years. 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. Potential expansion, improvements, and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have beneficial impacts to 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). JF - EPA number: 100255, Volume I--238 pages, Volume II--306 pages, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - 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/816526882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM SOUTH OF U.S. 50 SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 754909719; 14446 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a large-scale, mixed-use development and associated infrastructure on 3,502 acres of land south of U.S. 50 in eastern Sacramento, California is proposed. The Folsom South of U.S. 50 Specific Plan Project would entail annexation to the City of Folsom of an area adjacent to the existing Folsom city limits and development of seven separate parcels. Overall, the proposed project would involve construction of approximately 1,483 acres of residential development, 506.7 acres of commercial and employment-generating land uses, 106.9 acres for a regional shopping mall, a police station, a fire station, a municipal services center, five elementary schools, a joint high school/middle school, a water treatment plant, associated on-site infrastructure, an off-site water supply line, highway interchanges and crossover roads, an off-site sewer line extension, and a 1,050-acre open space area, including a preserve. The project would require a water supply of 8,000 acre-feet of water per year, based on current water-demand assumptions and implementation of reasonable conservation measures in years when the water supply would be reduced by up to 25 percent. Potential acquisition of a long-term Central Valley Project water entitlement diverted from the Sacramento River could serve the planned community. In addition to the proposed project, five additional land use development alternatives and 11 water conveyance and treatment alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under the No Project Alternative, the plan area would not be annexed and would remain under the jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The No USACE Permit Alternative would avoid placement of dredged or fill material and would entail construction of 3,837 fewer residential housing units. The Resource Impact Minimization Alternative would include a larger area of high-quality habitat in the proposed preserve. The total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 205 acres and 2,245 fewer residential units would be constructed. The Centralized Development Alternative would reduce residential development by 387 acres, but total number of residential units would be reduced by only 1,186. Under the Reduced Hillside Development Alternative, the total acreage of residential development would be reduced by 64 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed project would expand the City of Folsom's current sphere of influence south of U.S. 50 in a manner that would foster orderly urban development and discourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl. The project would provide both jobs and housing and would generate a positive fiscal impact for the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-generated emissions of nitrogen oxides and fugitive dust would exceed recommended thresholds and residents could be exposed to dust from asbestos rocks and soils. Project implementation would result in loss and degradation of habitat for several species, including vernal pool invertebrates, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Swainson's hawk. Increased traffic would result in unacceptable levels of service on area roadways and warrant the need for improvements. A Superfund site containing volatile organic compounds and or perchlorate in the soil or groundwater could create a hazard to public health. The visual quality of a scenic vista would be degraded and lighting would result in increased skyglow effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100254, Volumes I, II and III--1,624 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drainage KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Roads KW - Schools KW - Sewers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754909719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FOLSOM+SOUTH+OF+U.S.+50+SPECIFIC+PLAN+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Folsom, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 754907323; 14447 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan 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 Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres of the Complex 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 General Management Plan was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues now facing park management for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which would perpetuate the current management regime, are considered in this draft 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 gateway to millions of acres of wilderness, 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 North Cascades 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 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 work to maintain the character and experience on 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 front country zone. Under Alternative C, management and education efforts would focus on broader ecosystem preservation and enhancement. Visitor experiences would be linked to solitude, tranquility, natural soundscapes, and scenery. There would be no net increase in miles of trail in Ross Lake NRA, some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness would be restricted, and seaplanes would not be allowed to land on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base. A wide variety of recreational activities would be allowed, and there would be fewer restrictions on recreational activities than under the other action alternatives. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the front country zone. The selected plan would guide decision-making by current and future management teams during the next 15 to 20 years. 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. Potential expansion, improvements, and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have beneficial impacts to 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). JF - EPA number: 100255, Volume I--238 pages, Volume II--306 pages, July 6, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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 - 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/754907323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-07-06&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 - 2010-08-20 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -