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&r